On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 08:42:33PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 05:56:00PM -0700, Fan Wu wrote: > > +config IPE_PROP_FS_VERITY > > + bool "Enable property for fs-verity files" > > + depends on FS_VERITY && FS_VERITY_BUILTIN_SIGNATURES > > + help > > + This option enables the usage of properties "fsverity_signature" > > + and "fsverity_digest". These properties evaluate to TRUE when > > + a file is fsverity enabled and has a valid builtin signature > > + whose signing cert is in the .fs-verity keyring or its > > + digest matches the supplied value in the policy. > > + > > + if unsure, answer Y. > > Does this really need to depend on FS_VERITY_BUILTIN_SIGNATURES? That's needed > for fsverity_signature to work, but fsverity_digest would work without it. > > I'd prefer if people had the option of only turning on > FS_VERITY_BUILTIN_SIGNATURES if they really need it. > I see that IPE_PROP_DM_VERITY is auto-selected when DM_VERITY && DM_VERITY_VERIFY_ROOTHASH_SIG. That differs from IPE_PROP_FS_VERITY. Should they really differ in this way? Would it perhaps make more sense to not have the IPE_PROP_DM_VERITY and IPE_PROP_FS_VERITY kconfig options at all, and instead just support the corresponding IPE properties when the underlying kconfig options are enabled (and SECURITY_IPE is also enabled)? DM_VERITY => dmverity_roothash DM_VERITY_VERIFY_ROOTHASH_SIG => dmverity_signature FS_VERITY => fsverity_digest FS_VERITY_BUILTIN_SIGNATURES => fsverity_signature That would keep the number of kconfig options down, while also not forcing people to enable the signature support in dm-verity and fsverity if they'd like to use digests only. - Eric