On 04/02/2021 04:53, Eric Snowberg wrote: > >> On Feb 3, 2021, at 11:49 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> This looks good to me, and it still works for my use case. Eric's >> patchset only looks for asymmetric keys in the blacklist keyring, so >> even if we use the same keyring we don't look for the same key types. My >> patchset only allows blacklist keys (i.e. hashes, not asymmetric keys) >> to be added by user space (if authenticated), but because Eric's >> asymmetric keys are loaded with KEY_ALLOC_BYPASS_RESTRICTION, it should >> be OK for his use case. There should be no interference between the two >> new features, but I find it a bit confusing to have such distinct use of >> keys from the same keyring depending on their type. > > I agree, it is a bit confusing. What is the thought of having a dbx > keyring, similar to how the platform keyring works? > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-security-module/msg40262.html > > >> On 03/02/2021 17:26, David Howells wrote: >>> >>> Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> This is the fifth patch series for adding support for >>>> EFI_CERT_X509_GUID entries [1]. It has been expanded to not only include >>>> dbx entries but also entries in the mokx. Additionally my series to >>>> preload these certificate [2] has also been included. >>> >>> Okay, I've tentatively applied this to my keys-next branch. However, it >>> conflicts minorly with Mickaël Salaün's patches that I've previously merged on >>> the same branch. Can you have a look at the merge commit >>> >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/commit/?h=keys-next&id=fdbbe7ceeb95090d09c33ce0497e0394c82aa33d >>> >>> (the top patch of my keys-next branch) >>> >>> to see if that is okay by both of you? If so, can you give it a whirl? > > > I’m seeing a build error within blacklist_hashes_checked with > one of my configs. > > The config is as follows: > > $ grep CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST .config > CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST=“revocation_list" > > $ cat certs/revocation_list > "tbs:1e125ea4f38acb7b29b0c495fd8e7602c2c3353b913811a9da3a2fb505c08a32” > > make[1]: *** No rule to make target 'revocation_list', needed by 'certs/blacklist_hashes_checked'. Stop. It requires an absolute path. This is to align with other variables using the config_filename macro: CONFIG_SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYS, CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY and now CONFIG_SYSTEM_REVOCATION_KEYS. Cf. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1221725.1607515111@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ We may want to patch scripts/kconfig/streamline_config.pl for both CONFIG_SYSTEM_REVOCATION_KEYS and CONFIG_SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_HASH_LIST, to warn user (and exit with an error) if such files are not found.
