On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 12:32 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote: > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 11:47:24AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > Hi Seth, > > > > On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 09:18 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 02:18:59PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > Require signed kernel modules on systems with secure boot mode enabled. > > > > > > > > To coordinate between appended kernel module signatures and IMA > > > > signatures, only define an IMA MODULE_CHECK policy rule if > > > > CONFIG_MODULE_SIG is not enabled. > > > > > > > > This patch defines a function named set_module_sig_required() and renames > > > > is_module_sig_enforced() to is_module_sig_enforced_or_required(). The > > > > call to set_module_sig_required() is dependent on CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY > > > > being enabled. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > With respect to interactions with the kernel lockdown patches, this > > > looks better than the patches I saw previously. I don't feel like I know > > > enough about what's going on with IMA to ack the patch, but I feel > > > confident that it's at least not going to break signature enforcement > > > for us. > > > > Thank you for testing! Could this be translated into a "tested-by" > > "(for w/lockdown patches)"? > > Yeah, that's fine. To be clear about what I tested, I've confirmed that > it doesn't interfere with requiring signed modules under lockdown with > CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY=n and IMA appraisal enabled. > > Tested-by: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Oh! You've disabled the coordination of the two signature verification methods. Any chance you could test with "CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY" enabled? Mimi
