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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.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>
Date:   Tue, 05 Feb 2019 11:47:24 -0500
In-Reply-To: <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>
         <20190205151859.GD16362@ubuntu-xps13>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <1549385244.4146.148.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Seth,

On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 09:18 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote:
> 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.

Thank you for testing!  Could this be translated into a "tested-by"
"(for w/lockdown patches)"?

Mimi