Hi Michal,
As mentioned by Baoquan, I have a patch set "[PATCH v5 0/3] use more
system keyrings to verify arm64 kdump kernel image signature" [1]. The
differences between your patch set and mine are as follows,
- my patch set only adds support for arm64 while yours also extends to
s390
- I made the code for verifying signed kernel image as PE file in x86
public so arm64 can reuse the code as well which seems to be better
approach
- I also cleaned up clean up arch_kexec_kernel_verify_sig
Would you mind if I integrate your first 3 patches with mine as follows
- for arm64, I'll use my version
- for s390, I'll use your version
For your last patch which allows to use of platform keyring for
signature verification of kernel module, I'll leave it to yourself. How
do you think about it?
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220401013118.348084-1-coxu@xxxxxxxxxx/
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 08:39:37PM +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote:
While testing KEXEC_SIG on powerpc I noticed discrepancy in support for
different keyrings across architectures and between KEXEC_SIG and
MODULE_SIG. Fix this by enabling suport for the missing keyrings.
The latter two patches obviously conflict with the ongoing module code
cleanup. If they turn out desirable I will add them to the other series
dealing with KEXEC_SIG.
The arm patches can be merged independently.
Thanks
Michal
Michal Suchanek (4):
Fix arm64 kexec forbidding kernels signed with keys in the secondary
keyring to boot
kexec, KEYS, arm64: Make use of platform keyring for signature
verification
kexec, KEYS, s390: Make use of built-in and secondary keyring for
signature verification
module, KEYS: Make use of platform keyring for signature verification
arch/arm64/kernel/kexec_image.c | 13 +++++++++++--
arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
kernel/module_signing.c | 14 ++++++++++----
3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
--
2.31.1
--
Best regards,
Coiby
