Re: Conflict with Mickaël Salaün's blacklist patches [was [PATCH v5 0/4] Add EFI_CERT_X509_GUID support for dbx/mokx entries]

Eric Snowberg eric.snowberg at
Thu Feb 4 03:53:49 UTC 2021

> On Feb 3, 2021, at 11:49 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic at> wrote:
> This looks good to me, and it still works for my use case. Eric's
> patchset only looks for asymmetric keys in the blacklist keyring, so
> even if we use the same keyring we don't look for the same key types. My
> patchset only allows blacklist keys (i.e. hashes, not asymmetric keys)
> to be added by user space (if authenticated), but because Eric's
> asymmetric keys are loaded with KEY_ALLOC_BYPASS_RESTRICTION, it should
> be OK for his use case.  There should be no interference between the two
> new features, but I find it a bit confusing to have such distinct use of
> keys from the same keyring depending on their type.

I agree, it is a bit confusing.  What is the thought of having a dbx 
keyring, similar to how the platform keyring works?

> On 03/02/2021 17:26, David Howells wrote:
>> Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg at> wrote:
>>> This is the fifth patch series for adding support for 
>>> EFI_CERT_X509_GUID entries [1].  It has been expanded to not only include
>>> dbx entries but also entries in the mokx.  Additionally my series to
>>> preload these certificate [2] has also been included.
>> Okay, I've tentatively applied this to my keys-next branch.  However, it
>> conflicts minorly with Mickaël Salaün's patches that I've previously merged on
>> the same branch.  Can you have a look at the merge commit
>> 	(the top patch of my keys-next branch)
>> to see if that is okay by both of you?  If so, can you give it a whirl?

I’m seeing a build error within blacklist_hashes_checked with
one of my configs.

The config is as follows:


$ cat certs/revocation_list

make[1]: *** No rule to make target 'revocation_list', needed by 'certs/blacklist_hashes_checked'.  Stop.

More information about the Linux-security-module-archive mailing list