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;
Message-ID: <b36b49c9-479f-8a33-c6d6-1cb00939150f@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jan 2022 15:51:39 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3a 00/11] ima: support fs-verity digests and
 signatures (alternative)
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>,
        "linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
        "zohar@linux.ibm.com" <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        "linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220127184614.2837938-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
 <YfLz8NftvbZtKvLT@sol.localdomain> <YfL0+q/ekv4H8lZg@sol.localdomain>
 <d122893c426f44aa95d5168773b60b9d@huawei.com>
 <YfRRUBZpQv2Hi1sL@sol.localdomain>
 <9af14af14beb46a28f57559e4b1dc1a7@huawei.com>
 <b262cb06-37fd-9760-8f6e-1dcacbf738b4@linux.ibm.com>
 <YfhFgtg4X1DLJtAQ@gmail.com>
From:   Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <YfhFgtg4X1DLJtAQ@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 1/31/22 15:24, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 02:29:19PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>>> don't think I realized there was a more direct, PKCS#7-less way to do it and
>>>> that IMA used that way.)  However, it would be better to use this as an
>>>> opportunity to move people off of the built-in signatures entirely, either by
>>>> switching to a full userspace solution or by switching to IMA.
>>> If what we sign remains the same, then we could support multiple
>>> methods and use a selector to let fsverity_verify_signature() know
>>> how it should verify the signature. I don't know what would be a
>>> proper place for the selector.
>>>
>>> PKCS#7 seems ok, as it is used for kernel modules. IMA would be
>>> also ok, as it can verify the signature more directly. I would also
>>> be interested in supporting PGP, to avoid the requirement for
>>> Linux distributions to manage a secondary key. I have a small
>>> extension for rpmsign, that I would like to test in the Fedora
>>> infrastructure.
>>>
>>> Both the PKCS#7 and the PGP methods don't require additional
>>> support from outside, the functions verify_pkcs7_signature()
>>> and verify_pgp_signature() (proposed, not yet in the upstream
>>> kernel) would be sufficient.
>> FYI: An empty file signed with pkcs7 and an ecc key for NIST p256 generates
>> a signature of size 817 bytes. If an RPM needs to carry such signatures on a
>> per-file basis we are back to the size increase of nearly an RSA signature.
>> I would say for packages this is probably too much size increase.. and this
>> is what drove the implementation of ECC support.
> I am getting 256 bytes for an ECC signature in PKCS#7 format:
>
> 	cd src/fsverity-utils
> 	make
> 	openssl ecparam -name prime256v1 -genkey -noout -out key.pem
> 	openssl req -new -x509 -key key.pem -out cert.pem -days 360
> 	touch file
> 	./fsverity sign file file.sig --key=key.pem --cert=cert.pem
> 	stat -c %s file.sig
>
> Probably you accidentally included the whole certificate in the PKCS#7 message.
> That's not required here.
>
> There are definitely problems with PKCS#7, and it does have space overhead.  But
> the space overhead is not as bad as you state.

You are right. I used openssl cms without -nocerts and -noattr 
(unintentionately). Though 256 bytes is RSA 2048 signature size again. 
ECDSA with NIST p256 key is around 70 bytes.


>
> - Eric