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: [PULL REQUEST] Lock down patches
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
Cc:     jmorris@namei.org,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Feb 2019 20:44:14 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CACdnJutqg26pk5xnK2ii3ia9JabAnBptE3YQ3yLvVT93as666Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACdnJuvW47m3JvEcuEX1bsr+L2Ht9LDn_iCuPbHLOoaohOFW4Q@mail.gmail.com>
         <1551392438.10911.227.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <CACdnJuvwnh0PKr5jUTm2h=P5-u-oLgBjvThX+DxcegShXReCdA@mail.gmail.com>
         <1551398720.10911.270.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <CACdnJutqg26pk5xnK2ii3ia9JabAnBptE3YQ3yLvVT93as666Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <1551404654.10911.276.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 17:01 -0800, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> > That's not a valid reason for preventing systems that do use IMA for
> > verifying the kexec kernel image signature or kernel module signatures
> > from enabling "lock down".  This just means that there needs to be
> > some coordination between the different signature verification
> > methods. [1][2]
> 
> I agree, but the current form of the integration makes it impossible
> for anyone using an IMA-enabled kernel (but not using IMA) to do
> anything unless they have IMA signatures. It's a problem we need to
> solve, I just don't think it's a problem we need to solve before
> merging the patchset.

That's simply not true.  Have you even looked at the IMA architecture
patches?

fcf338449af5 x86/ima: require signed kernel modules
d958083a8f64 x86/ima: define arch_get_ima_policy() for x86

Mimi