On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 20:37 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 15:16 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 18:12 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > Well, in the absence of hardcoded in-kernel policy, there needs to be > > > some mechanism for ensuring the integrity of a policy. Shipping a signed > > > policy initramfs fragment and having any Secure Boot bootloaders pass a > > > flag in bootparams indicating that the kernel should panic if that > > > fragment isn't present would seem to be the easiest way of doing that. > > > Or have I misunderstood the question? > > > > Ok, I was confused by the term "fragmented" initramfs. So once you have > > verified the "early" fragmented initramfs signature, this initramfs will > > load the "trusted" public keys and could also load the MAC policy. (I > > realize that dracut is currently loading the MAC policy, not the > > initramfs.) The MAC policy would then be trusted, right? Could we then > > use the LSM labels for defining an integrity policy for kexec? > > Right, that'd be the rough idea. Any further runtime policy updates > would presumably need to be signed with a trusted key. I'm really sorry to belabor this point, but can kexec rely on an LSM label to identify a specific file, out of all the files being executed, in a secure boot environment? The SELinux integrity rule for kexec would then look something like, appraise func=BPRM_CHECK obj_type=kdump_exec_t appraise_type=imasig We could then follow this up with Serge's idea of, "a capset akin to the bounding set, saying you can only have the caps in this set if the running binary was a signed one." kexec already requires CAP_SYS_BOOT. thanks, Mimi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
