Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec: Do not verify the signature without the lockdown
 or mandatory signature
To:     Jiri Bohac <jbohac@suse.cz>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, jmorris@namei.org, mjg59@google.com,
        dyoung@redhat.com, bhe@redhat.com
References: <20200525052351.24134-1-lijiang@redhat.com>
 <20200526135935.ffkfulsjf7xrep63@dwarf.suse.cz>
From:   lijiang <lijiang@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <07a65a70-3764-f62f-705c-049b8d409316@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 May 2020 11:15:49 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200526135935.ffkfulsjf7xrep63@dwarf.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

在 2020年05月26日 21:59, Jiri Bohac 写道:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 01:23:51PM +0800, Lianbo Jiang wrote:
>> So, here, let's simplify the logic to improve code readability. If the
>> KEXEC_SIG_FORCE enabled or kexec lockdown enabled, signature verification
>> is mandated. Otherwise, we lift the bar for any kernel image.
> 
> I agree completely; in fact that was my intention when
> introducing the code, but I got overruled about the return codes:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180119125425.l72meyyc2qtrriwe@dwarf.suse.cz/
> 
> I like this simplification very much, except this part:
> 
>> +	if (ret) {
>> +		pr_debug("kernel signature verification failed (%d).\n", ret);
> 
> ...
> 
>> -		pr_notice("kernel signature verification failed (%d).\n", ret);
> 
> I think the log level should stay at most PR_NOTICE when the
> verification failure results in rejecting the kernel. Perhaps
> even lower.
> 

Thank you for the comment, Jiri Bohac.

I like the idea of staying at most PR_NOTICE, but the pr_notice() will output
some messages that kernel could want to ignore, such as the case you mentioned
below.

> In case verification is not enforced and the failure is
> ignored, KERN_DEBUG seems reasonable.
> 

Yes, good understanding. It seems that the pr_debug() is still a good option here?
Any other thoughts?

Thanks.
Lianbo


> Regards,
>