On Mon, 2020-03-02 at 15:52 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 15:48, Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 14:10 -0500, Nayna Jain wrote: > > > Every time a new architecture defines the IMA architecture specific > > > functions - arch_ima_get_secureboot() and arch_ima_get_policy(), the IMA > > > include file needs to be updated. To avoid this "noise", this patch > > > defines a new IMA Kconfig IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT option, allowing > > > the different architectures to select it. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain <nayna@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Philipp Rudo <prudo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 2 +- > > > arch/s390/Kconfig | 1 + > > > arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 + > > > include/linux/ima.h | 3 +-- > > > security/integrity/ima/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++ > > > 5 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > > > index 497b7d0b2d7e..b8ce1b995633 100644 > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig > > > @@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ config PPC > > > select SYSCTL_EXCEPTION_TRACE > > > select THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK > > > select VIRT_TO_BUS if !PPC64 > > > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if PPC_SECURE_BOOT > > > # > > > # Please keep this list sorted alphabetically. > > > # > > > @@ -978,7 +979,6 @@ config PPC_SECURE_BOOT > > > prompt "Enable secure boot support" > > > bool > > > depends on PPC_POWERNV > > > - depends on IMA_ARCH_POLICY > > > help > > > Systems with firmware secure boot enabled need to define security > > > policies to extend secure boot to the OS. This config allows a user > > > diff --git a/arch/s390/Kconfig b/arch/s390/Kconfig > > > index 8abe77536d9d..90ff3633ade6 100644 > > > --- a/arch/s390/Kconfig > > > +++ b/arch/s390/Kconfig > > > @@ -195,6 +195,7 @@ config S390 > > > select ARCH_HAS_FORCE_DMA_UNENCRYPTED > > > select SWIOTLB > > > select GENERIC_ALLOCATOR > > > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT > > > > > > > > > config SCHED_OMIT_FRAME_POINTER > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > index beea77046f9b..cafa66313fe2 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > > > @@ -230,6 +230,7 @@ config X86 > > > select VIRT_TO_BUS > > > select X86_FEATURE_NAMES if PROC_FS > > > select PROC_PID_ARCH_STATUS if PROC_FS > > > + select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if EFI > > > > Not everyone is interested in enabling IMA or requiring IMA runtime > > policies. With this patch, enabling IMA_ARCH_POLICY is therefore > > still left up to the person building the kernel. As a result, I'm > > seeing the following warning, which is kind of cool. > > > > WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for > > IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT > > Depends on [n]: INTEGRITY [=y] && IMA [=y] && IMA_ARCH_POLICY [=n] > > Selected by [y]: > > - X86 [=y] && EFI [=y] > > > > Ard, Michael, Martin, just making sure this type of warning is > > acceptable before upstreaming this patch. I would appreciate your > > tags. > > > > Ehm, no, warnings like these are not really acceptable. It means there > is an inconsistency in the way the Kconfig dependencies are defined. > > Does this help: > > select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if EFI && IMA_ARCH_POLICY > > ? Yes, that's fine for x86. Michael, Martin, do you want something similar or would you prefer actually selecting IMA_ARCH_POLICY? Mimi
