[PATCH v3 08/10] certs: Check that builtin blacklist hashes are valid
mic at digikod.net
Thu Jan 21 09:18:20 UTC 2021
On 21/01/2021 00:53, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:57:55PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> On 20/01/2021 06:19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 04:19:07PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>>> From: Mickaël Salaün <mic at linux.microsoft.com>
>>>> Add and use a check-blacklist-hashes.awk script to make sure that the
>>>> builtin blacklist hashes will be approved by the run time blacklist
>>>> description checks. This is useful to debug invalid hash formats, and
>>>> it make sure that previous hashes which could have been loaded in the
>>>> kernel (but ignored) are now noticed and deal with by the user.
>>>> Cc: David Howells <dhowells at redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic at linux.microsoft.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko at kernel.org>
>>> I get this with a self-signed cert:
>>> certs/Makefile:18: *** target pattern contains no '%'. Stop.
>> As said in the Kconfig documentation for
>> CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST, you need to provide a file with the
>> list, not to set the string directly in the configuration variable. This
>> patch series didn't change this behavior. The same kind of macros are
>> used for CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY.
> OK, the documentation just states that:
> "Hashes to be preloaded into the system blacklist keyring"
> No mention about a file. I'd add a patch to update this documentation.
I was referring to the full description:
string "Hashes to be preloaded into the system blacklist keyring"
depends on SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_KEYRING
If set, this option should be the filename of a list of hashes in the
form "<hash>", "<hash>", ... . This will be included into a C
wrapper to incorporate the list into the kernel. Each <hash> should
be a string of hex digits.
…but the short description doesn't mention filename.
>>> I used the script in 10/10 to test this, which is another
>>> reamark: the patches are in invalid order, as you need to
>>> apply 10/10 before you can test 8/10.
>> I'll move patch 10/10 earlier but this kind of formatting was already
>> required (but silently ignored) for this option to be really taken into
>> account. Only the kernel code was available to understand how to
>> effectively create such hash.
> Great, thanks.
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive