On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 09:56:58AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > 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: > > > > 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? For s390 something like select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if IMA_ARCH_POLICY should be fine. Thanks, Heiko
