[PATCH v4 00/12] Enroll kernel keys thru MOK

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Thu, 2021-08-19 at 09:23 -0600, Eric Snowberg wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 2021, at 7:10 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2021-08-19 at 14:38 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 20:20 -0400, Eric Snowberg wrote:
> > > > Downstream Linux distros try to have a single signed kernel for each
> > > > architecture.  Each end-user may use this kernel in entirely different
> > > > ways.  Some downstream kernels have chosen to always trust platform keys
> > > > within the Linux trust boundary for kernel module signing.  These
> > > > kernels have no way of using digital signature base IMA appraisal.
> > > > 
> > > > This series introduces a new Linux kernel keyring containing the Machine
> > > > Owner Keys (MOK) called .mok. It also adds a new MOK variable to shim.
> > > 
> > > I would name it as ".machine" because it is more "re-usable" name, e.g.
> > > could be used for similar things as MOK. ".mok" is a bad name because
> > > it binds directly to a single piece of user space software.
> > 
> > Nayna previously said,
> >   "I believe the underlying source from where CA keys are loaded might vary 
> >   based on the architecture (".mok" is UEFI specific.). The key part is 
> >   that this new keyring should contain only CA keys which can be later 
> >   used to vouch for user keys loaded onto IMA or secondary keyring at 
> >   runtime. It would be good to have a "ca" in the name, like .xxxx-ca, 
> >   where xxxx can be machine, owner, or system. I prefer .system-ca."
> > 
> > The CA keys on the MOK db is simply the first root of trust being
> > defined, but other roots of trust are sure to follow.  For this reason,
> > I agree naming the new keyring "mok" should be avoided.
> 
> As I said previously, I’m open to renaming, I just would like to have an 
> agreement on the new name before changing everything.  The current proposed 
> names I have heard are “.machine" and ".system-ca".  Is there a preference 
> the maintainers feel is appropriate?  If so, please let me know and I’ll 
> rename it. Thanks.


Just ".system" would be good. It's informative enough.


/Jarkko