Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ima: Implement support for uncompressed module appended signatures | From | Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <> | Date | Thu, 6 Feb 2020 09:07:28 -0800 |
| |
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?
> diff --git a/security/integrity/integrity.h b/security/integrity/integrity.h > index 73fc286834d7..63f0e6bff0e0 100644 > --- a/security/integrity/integrity.h > +++ b/security/integrity/integrity.h > @@ -145,7 +145,8 @@ int integrity_kernel_read(struct file *file, loff_t offset, > #define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_EVM 0 > #define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_IMA 1 > #define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_PLATFORM 2 > -#define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_MAX 3 > +#define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_KERNEL 3 > +#define INTEGRITY_KEYRING_MAX 4
-lakshmi
| |