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;
Date:   Fri, 5 Nov 2021 14:14:01 +0100
From:   Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Such=E1nek?= <msuchanek@suse.de>
To:     Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>
Cc:     keyrings@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        Frank van der Linden <fllinden@amazon.com>,
        Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KEXEC_SIG with appended signature
Message-ID: <20211105131401.GL11195@kunlun.suse.cz>
References: <cover.1635948742.git.msuchanek@suse.de>
 <87czneeurr.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87czneeurr.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 09:55:52PM +1100, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@suse.de> writes:
> 
> > S390 uses appended signature for kernel but implements the check
> > separately from module loader.
> >
> > Support for secure boot on powerpc with appended signature is planned -
> > grub patches submitted upstream but not yet merged.
> 
> Power Non-Virtualised / OpenPower already supports secure boot via kexec
> with signature verification via IMA. I think you have now sent a
> follow-up series that merges some of the IMA implementation, I just
> wanted to make sure it was clear that we actually already have support

So is IMA_KEXEC and KEXEC_SIG redundant?

I see some architectures have both. I also see there is a lot of overlap
between the IMA framework and the KEXEC_SIG and MODULE_SIg.

Thanks

Michal