Re: Linux Firmware Signing

From: David Woodhouse
Date: Thu Aug 27 2015 - 08:04:14 EST


> Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "PKCS#7: Add an optional authenticated attribute to hold firmware name"
>> Linux kernel
>> - PKCS#7/CMS SignerInfo attribute types
>> - firmwareName
>> I take it you are referring to this?
> Yes.
>> If we follow this model we'd then need something like:
>> - seLinuxPolicyName
>> That should mean each OID that has different file names would need to be
>> explicit about and have a similar entry on the registry. I find that
>> pretty
>> redundant and would like to avoid that if possible.
> firmwareName is easy for people to understand - it's the name the kernel
> asks
> for and the filename of the blob. seLinuxPolicyName is, I think, a lot
> more
> tricky since a lot of people don't use SELinux, and most that do don't
> understand it (most people that use it aren't even really aware of it).
> If you can use the firmwareName as the SELinux/LSM key, I would suggest
> doing
> so - even if you dress it up as a path (/lib/firmware/<firmwareName>).
> David

In conversation with Mimi last week she was very keen on the model where
we load modules & firmware in such a fashion that the kernel has access to
the original inode -- by passing in a f2f, or in the firmware case by
doing the rd lookup directly. So surely you have all the SELinux labelling
you need?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at