> On Aug 19, 2021, at 7:10 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2021-08-19 at 14:38 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 20:20 -0400, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>>> Downstream Linux distros try to have a single signed kernel for each
>>> architecture. Each end-user may use this kernel in entirely different
>>> ways. Some downstream kernels have chosen to always trust platform keys
>>> within the Linux trust boundary for kernel module signing. These
>>> kernels have no way of using digital signature base IMA appraisal.
>>>
>>> This series introduces a new Linux kernel keyring containing the Machine
>>> Owner Keys (MOK) called .mok. It also adds a new MOK variable to shim.
>>
>> I would name it as ".machine" because it is more "re-usable" name, e.g.
>> could be used for similar things as MOK. ".mok" is a bad name because
>> it binds directly to a single piece of user space software.
>
> Nayna previously said,
> "I believe the underlying source from where CA keys are loaded might vary
> based on the architecture (".mok" is UEFI specific.). The key part is
> that this new keyring should contain only CA keys which can be later
> used to vouch for user keys loaded onto IMA or secondary keyring at
> runtime. It would be good to have a "ca" in the name, like .xxxx-ca,
> where xxxx can be machine, owner, or system. I prefer .system-ca."
>
> The CA keys on the MOK db is simply the first root of trust being
> defined, but other roots of trust are sure to follow. For this reason,
> I agree naming the new keyring "mok" should be avoided.
As I said previously, I’m open to renaming, I just would like to have an
agreement on the new name before changing everything. The current proposed
names I have heard are “.machine" and ".system-ca". Is there a preference
the maintainers feel is appropriate? If so, please let me know and I’ll
rename it. Thanks.
