Re: Linux Firmware Signing

[David Woodhouse]

See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html


> Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> "PKCS#7: Add an optional authenticated attribute to hold firmware name"
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/commit/?h=fwsign-pkcs7&id=1448377a369993f864915743cfb34772e730213good
>>
>>         1.3.6.1.4.1.2312.16     Linux kernel
>>         1.3.6.1.4.1.2312.16.2   - PKCS#7/CMS SignerInfo attribute types
>>         1.3.6.1.4.1.2312.16.2.1   - firmwareName
>>
>> I take it you are referring to this?
>
> Yes.
>
>> If we follow this model we'd then need something like:
>>
>>         1.3.6.1.4.1.2312.16.2.2   - 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?

-- 
dwmw2

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/