Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ima: Implement support for uncompressed module appended signatures

[Eric Snowberg]

> On Feb 6, 2020, at 10:07 AM, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On 2/6/2020 8:42 AM, Eric Snowberg wrote:
> 
>>  @@ -31,6 +32,7 @@ static const char * const keyring_name[INTEGRITY_KEYRING_MAX] = {
>>  	".ima",
>>  #endif
>>  	".platform",
>> +	".builtin_trusted_keys",
>>  };
>>    #ifdef CONFIG_IMA_KEYRINGS_PERMIT_SIGNED_BY_BUILTIN_OR_SECONDARY
>> @@ -45,8 +47,11 @@ static struct key *integrity_keyring_from_id(const unsigned int id)
>>  		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>    	if (!keyring[id]) {
>> -		keyring[id] =
>> -			request_key(&key_type_keyring, keyring_name[id], NULL);
>> +		if (id == INTEGRITY_KEYRING_KERNEL)
>> +			keyring[id] = VERIFY_USE_SECONDARY_KEYRING;
> 
> Since "Built-In Trusted Keyring" or "Secondary Trusted Keyring" is used, would it be more appropriate to name this identifier INTEGRITY_KEYRING_BUILTIN_OR_SECONDARY?

Iâm open to changing INTEGRITY_KEYRING_KERNEL to INTEGRITY_KEYRING_BUILTIN_OR_SECONDARY if that seems more appropriate.