[PATCH RFC] Add a lockdown_hibernate parameter

[Kelvie Wong]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 at 13:12, Paul Moore <paul at paul-moore.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 11:01 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap at infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > [add security & dhowells]
> >
> > On 11/13/23 18:23, Kelvie Wong wrote:
> > > This allows the user to tell the kernel that they know better (namely,
> > > they secured their swap properly), and that it can enable hibernation.
> > >
> > > I've been using this for about a year now, as it doesn't seem like
> > > proper secure hibernation was going to be implemented back then, and
> > > it's now been a year since I've been building my own kernels with this
> > > patch, so getting this upstreamed would save some CO2 from me building
> > > my own kernels every upgrade.
> > >
> > > Some other not-me users have also tested the patch:
> > >
> > > https://community.frame.work/t/guide-fedora-36-hibernation-with-enabled-secure-boot-and-full-disk-encryption-fde-decrypting-over-tpm2/25474/17
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kelvie Wong <kelvie at kelvie.ca>
>
> I would feel a lot better about this if there was a way to verify that
> the swap was protected as opposed to leaving that as a note in a doc
> that the majority of users will never see, read, or understand.

I'd argue that this wouldn't even be necessary if we detect the swap was
protected -- hibernation should just be enabled in that case without setting
any parameters.

My understanding is that it was disabled waiting for this
functionality, and it's been
at least a couple of years now [1], so it looks like it's not such an
easy problem.

Anyway, my argument is that the majority of users will never use this kernel
parameter anyway, so I think it's a fair assumption that the power users that
*do* use this will educate themselves on why this parameter even exists.

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/847042/

-- 
Kelvie