On Wed, 2021-09-01 at 07:34 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, 2021-08-27 at 16:44 -0400, Nayna wrote: > > On 8/25/21 6:27 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Thu, 2021-08-26 at 01:21 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2021-08-24 at 10:34 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > > > > Jarkko, I think the emphasis should not be on "machine" from > > > > > > > > Machine Owner Key (MOK), but on "owner". Whereas Nayna is > > > > > > > > focusing more on the "_ca" aspect of the name. Perhaps > > > > > > > > consider naming it "system_owner_ca" or something along those > > > > > > > > lines. > > > > > > > What do you gain such overly long identifier? Makes no sense. > > > > > > > What is "ca aspect of the name" anyway? > > > > > > As I mentioned previously, the main usage of this new keyring is > > > > > > that it should contain only CA keys which can be later used to > > > > > > vouch for user keys loaded onto secondary or IMA keyring at > > > > > > runtime. Having ca in the name like .xxxx_ca, would make the > > > > > > keyring name self-describing. Since you preferred .system, we can > > > > > > call it .system_ca. > > > > > Sounds good to me. Jarkko? > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Mimi > > > > I just wonder what you exactly gain with "_ca"? > > > Remember, a CA cert is a self signed cert with the CA:TRUE basic > > > constraint. Pretty much no secure boot key satisfies this (secure boot > > > chose deliberately NOT to use CA certificates, so they're all some type > > > of intermediate or leaf), so the design seems to be only to pick out > > > the CA certificates you put in the MOK keyring. Adding the _ca suffix > > > may deflect some of the "why aren't all my MOK certificates in the > > > keyring" emails ... > > > > My understanding is the .system_ca keyring should not be restricted only > > to self-signed CAs (Root CA). Any cert that can qualify as Root or > > Intermediate CA with Basic Constraints CA:TRUE should be allowed. In > > fact, the intermediate CA certificates closest to the leaf nodes would > > be best. > > > > Thanks for bringing up that adding the _ca suffix may deflect some of > > the "why aren't all my MOK certificates in the keyring" emails. > > What the heck is the pragamatic gain of adding such a suffix? Makes > zero sense If this series needs both "system" and "system_ca" keyrings, then there would be some sanity in this. Also, I still *fully* lack understanding of the use of word system. Why MOK is not SOK then?? /Jarkko
