lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/12] Security: Add CAP_COMPROMISE_KERNEL
Date
On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 15:16 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 18:12 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Well, in the absence of hardcoded in-kernel policy, there needs to be
> > some mechanism for ensuring the integrity of a policy. Shipping a signed
> > policy initramfs fragment and having any Secure Boot bootloaders pass a
> > flag in bootparams indicating that the kernel should panic if that
> > fragment isn't present would seem to be the easiest way of doing that.
> > Or have I misunderstood the question?
>
> Ok, I was confused by the term "fragmented" initramfs. So once you have
> verified the "early" fragmented initramfs signature, this initramfs will
> load the "trusted" public keys and could also load the MAC policy. (I
> realize that dracut is currently loading the MAC policy, not the
> initramfs.) The MAC policy would then be trusted, right? Could we then
> use the LSM labels for defining an integrity policy for kexec?

Right, that'd be the rough idea. Any further runtime policy updates
would presumably need to be signed with a trusted key.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-20 22:23    [W:0.077 / U:0.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site