Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:1d13:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id pp19csp283840pxb; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 21:47:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyBkPGRzNUBINOGpISKetQhliroqvn0LqFu/WYydPyYOkjZPs1T+JCV7O6u0tiweWIfBAn5 X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1484:: with SMTP id x4mr5153079ejc.72.1630471677517; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 21:47:57 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1630471677; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=wjzoUm58K4rpvFs4vRWo8PDe9I2FzKpuW+mOUPZlHCwiLJfZRqqz1Eo0vigMDYISNf ONeJ0Oejd7TqVYsnYEnZpV18NsjtYgWq8y52YLaVasFne3ui++G63Td1eauqDiuiCuzB tRSq5/vcMpzgdqfdlKYaHUy/KSSTfZ7cNBWkJLhBi3qOZa8uH8OJd5SDq+/shqJs2c0f QKIk1D7GsIN5qU70X8Fsea7Uszzok34e1UKMrLzcTgZAFmLFr2GLN0FXui+26+/zTLoO W+Q15QluReqzoKuMTE7i9KYtfPTtmOY41jw/yj7Zc/4lX9CN8zPmtjotwo0EiaZf/XZr xxrA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:mime-version:user-agent :content-transfer-encoding:references:in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from :subject:message-id:dkim-signature; bh=JvGTMWnbn5jLLgpJJDC3WlEVOnCu78QG/726Xa1psJA=; b=U6nP3zGPUxa1RJBxdkh0HmHziXLyAqywxjovM4x9H5obrNtRRECBPz8+hwDFB8o0RD 2xSaqi7OKJprsoyk6r8vOZ/4N42h1e+bRi1ujOSGzliOMi6e3DkjNUXmHuCooxNW66B0 DlLF7YxgitRVzEgBTMNRk1+l4t4MdhLLpt0X8O9FBuYfeSi6qIOSRZrQfzAEOKyqGx4K TNxN/VsOMqc6kjjUGcwds6Kg0r8zJo6Mk7fPPi9hebORDJDgGInzzmLnPbBhxNS+ng37 Kupe6w2+HN7pOP4MbhIrrBlS1VbkCiUwGutPbYTdAivJiyeo8cHhzq2TXh5FV6Bq+/wH 4/pA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=NT7M1T+h; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id z8si20306603edx.190.2021.08.31.21.47.04; Tue, 31 Aug 2021 21:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=NT7M1T+h; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241869AbhIAEr4 (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 1 Sep 2021 00:47:56 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:56338 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241684AbhIAErz (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2021 00:47:55 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3427661008; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 04:46:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1630471619; bh=6mPcbqd3sra2Eh4c8H6A89Ite2nAKh2TgjuRTl49Vag=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=NT7M1T+hYKngyLYyi2TW+0++hwLLmqhfDEvn+yIbz2aCCdq0StaqWYvrr5SXGFBTU DGqxGNvEibsvCSmdzTAcMcbTN362OQyHIyskhn0PAcTsOXxaf0tqyETk1EGECIwfgU AFvklTNxr3diXlr0wwTvLE2r711mtWFwq2RKghfa2i9IvKcBqtEZmKHPAgvbVBPSSQ hcSe6HTLgYhVSBNlCy+reE5zD8S2jliInHVWot6SDM291iiCZD0zZYd+e/Avv9dyNV T1SothX5F9wxNowWTRw9fpN1ZIr+tHL62OEUQ9M6JL8AgTFyrg1XOEwjrzOxIf6vJM dsDRo8VU2XEVQ== Message-ID: <809185b33150a7d25da6b11323af3d8dbe549836.camel@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] Enroll kernel keys thru MOK From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Nayna , James Bottomley , Mimi Zohar , Eric Snowberg , David Howells Cc: keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity , David Woodhouse , Herbert Xu , "David S . Miller" , James Morris , "Serge E . Hallyn" , keescook@chromium.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, scott.branden@broadcom.com, weiyongjun1@huawei.com, nayna@linux.ibm.com, ebiggers@google.com, ardb@kernel.org, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian , lszubowi@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, pjones@redhat.com, "konrad.wilk@oracle.com" , Patrick Uiterwijk Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2021 07:46:57 +0300 In-Reply-To: References: <20210819002109.534600-1-eric.snowberg@oracle.com> <91B1FE51-C6FC-4ADF-B05A-B1E59E20132E@oracle.com> <9526a4e0be9579a9e52064dd590a78c6496ee025.camel@linux.ibm.com> <9067ff7142d097698b827f3c1630a751898a76bf.camel@kernel.org> <10bc1017-2b45-43f3-ad91-d09310b24c2c@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <18c0a9ca6b3ab8103e3b9270a6f59539787f6e12.camel@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5-0ubuntu1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2021-09-01 at 07:36 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Wed, 2021-09-01 at 07:34 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Fri, 2021-08-27 at 16:44 -0400, Nayna wrote: > > > On 8/25/21 6:27 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2021-08-26 at 01:21 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2021-08-24 at 10:34 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > > > > > Jarkko, I think the emphasis should not be on "machine" f= rom > > > > > > > > > Machine Owner Key (MOK), but on "owner". Whereas Nayna i= s > > > > > > > > > focusing more on the "_ca" aspect of the name. Perhaps > > > > > > > > > consider naming it "system_owner_ca" or something along t= hose > > > > > > > > > lines. > > > > > > > > What do you gain such overly long identifier? Makes no sens= e. > > > > > > > > What is "ca aspect of the name" anyway? > > > > > > > As I mentioned previously, the main usage of this new keyring= is > > > > > > > that it should contain only CA keys which can be later used t= o > > > > > > > vouch for user keys loaded onto secondary or IMA keyring at > > > > > > > runtime. Having ca in the name like .xxxx_ca, would make the > > > > > > > keyring name self-describing. Since you preferred .system, we= can > > > > > > > call it .system_ca. > > > > > > Sounds good to me. Jarkko? > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > Mimi > > > > > I just wonder what you exactly gain with "_ca"? > > > > Remember, a CA cert is a self signed cert with the CA:TRUE basic > > > > constraint. Pretty much no secure boot key satisfies this (secure = boot > > > > chose deliberately NOT to use CA certificates, so they're all some = type > > > > of intermediate or leaf), so the design seems to be only to pick ou= t > > > > the CA certificates you put in the MOK keyring. Adding the _ca suf= fix > > > > may deflect some of the "why aren't all my MOK certificates in the > > > > keyring" emails ... > > >=20 > > > My understanding is the .system_ca keyring should not be restricted o= nly=20 > > > to self-signed CAs (Root CA). Any cert that can qualify as Root or= =20 > > > Intermediate CA with Basic Constraints CA:TRUE should be allowed. In= =20 > > > fact, the intermediate CA certificates closest to the leaf nodes woul= d=20 > > > be best. > > >=20 > > > Thanks for bringing up that adding the _ca suffix may deflect some of= =20 > > > the "why aren't all my MOK certificates in the keyring" emails. > >=20 > > What the heck is the pragamatic gain of adding such a suffix? Makes > > zero sense >=20 > If this series needs both "system" and "system_ca" keyrings, then > there would be some sanity in this. >=20 > Also, I still *fully* lack understanding of the use of word system. >=20 > Why MOK is not SOK then?? Please just call it "machine". You have machines that hold the keyring. "system" does not mean anything concrete. I don't know what a "system" is. /Jarkko