On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 12:52 PM Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Feb 28, 2025, at 9:14 AM, Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 9:09 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2025-02-27 at 17:22 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > >>> > >>> I'd still also like to see some discussion about moving towards the > >>> addition of keyrings oriented towards usage instead of limiting > >>> ourselves to keyrings that are oriented on the source of the keys. > >>> Perhaps I'm missing some important detail which makes this > >>> impractical, but it seems like an obvious improvement to me and would > >>> go a long way towards solving some of the problems that we typically > >>> see with kernel keys. > > The intent is not to limit ourselves to the source of the key. The main > point of Clavis is to allow the end-user to determine what kernel keys > they want to trust and for what purpose, irrespective of the originating > source (.builtin_trusted, .secondary, .machine, or .platform). If we could > go back in time, individual keyrings could be created that are oriented > toward usage. The idea for introducing Clavis is to bridge what we > have today with kernel keys and allow them to be usage based. While it is unlikely that the current well known keyrings could be removed, I see no reason why new usage oriented keyrings could not be introduced. We've seen far more significant shifts in the kernel over the years. -- paul-moore.com
