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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1550060279-8624-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <1550060279-8624-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Mar 2019 14:27:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CACdnJuuPyL3Qo4jAiJDQvUF9Ctch6Yo2bKezEuQ2KaM5ZZ1vqw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>,
        "Bruno E . O . Meneguele" <bmeneg@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:18 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> -       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY) && arch_ima_get_secureboot())
> +       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY) && arch_ima_get_secureboot()) {
> +               if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MODULE_SIG))
> +                       set_module_sig_enforced();
>                 return sb_arch_rules;

Linus previously pushed back on having the lockdown features
automatically enabled on secure boot systems. Why are we doing the
same in IMA?