Re: [PATCH] X.509: Partially revert patch to add validation against IMA MOK keyring

[David Howells]

David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > Is this a NAK on the patch?
> > 
> > Yes
> 
> I would like to counter Mimi's NAK:
> 
>  (1) Commit 41c89b64d7184a780f12f2cccdabe65cb2408893 doesn't do what it
>      says.  Given the change I want to revert, this bit of the description:
> 
> 	To successfully import a key into .ima_mok it must be signed by a
> 	key which CA is in .system keyring.
> 
>      is *not* true.  A key in the .ima_mok keyring will *also* allow a key
>      into the .ima_mok keyring.  Thus the .ima_mok keyring is redundant and
>      should be merged into the .system keyring.
> 
>  (2) You can use KEYCTL_LINK to link trusted keys between trusted keyrings
>      if the key being linked grants permission.  Add a new key to one open
>      keyring and you can then link it across to another.
> 
>      Keyrings need to guard against *link* as per my recently posted
>      patches.
> 
>  (3) In the current model, the trusted-only keyring and trusted-key concept
>      ought really to apply only to the .system keyring as the concept of
>      'trust' is boolean in this implementation.
> 
>      Again, I want to change this as per my recently posted patches.

 (4) Marcel asked to have user-based 'trusted' keyrings - where userspace
     can load a keyring up and then mark it as 'trusted' thereby limiting
     further additions - for the use with kernel-based TLS.

     These would *not* depend on the .system keyring.  Unless we're willing
     to store the root CA certificate for the world in the kernel, we can't
     really do that.

David