Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 5 Feb 2019 09:18:59 -0600
From:   Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Justin Forbes <jforbes@redhat.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules
Message-ID: <20190205151859.GD16362@ubuntu-xps13>
References: <1548962339-10681-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com>
 <1548962339-10681-2-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1548962339-10681-2-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 02:18:59PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> Require signed kernel modules on systems with secure boot mode enabled.
> 
> To coordinate between appended kernel module signatures and IMA
> signatures, only define an IMA MODULE_CHECK policy rule if
> CONFIG_MODULE_SIG is not enabled.
> 
> This patch defines a function named set_module_sig_required() and renames
> is_module_sig_enforced() to is_module_sig_enforced_or_required().  The
> call to set_module_sig_required() is dependent on CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY
> being enabled.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>

With respect to interactions with the kernel lockdown patches, this
looks better than the patches I saw previously. I don't feel like I know
enough about what's going on with IMA to ack the patch, but I feel
confident that it's at least not going to break signature enforcement
for us.

Thanks,
Seth