From: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@fedoraproject.org>,
Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
"ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@sirena.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Secure/verified boot and roots of trust
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 17:11:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1471450271.13300.76.camel@decadent.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1471439025.2664.49.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2225 bytes --]
On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 09:03 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 12:38 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 00:01 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2016-08-03 at 09:46 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And it gets rid of the IMO extremely nasty temporary key. I
> > > > personally think that reproducible builds would add considerable
> > > > value
> > > > to many use cases, and we currently can't simultaneously support
> > > > reproducible builds and Secure Boot without a big mess involving
> > > > trusted parties, and the whole point of reproducible builds is to
> > > > avoid needed to trust the packager.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > You need that trusted party to supply a signature for the kernel, so
> > > why is it so much worse to have them do that for the modules as well?
> > [...]
> >
> > I think I can now answer this myself.
> >
> > Where there's a separate certificate store, the signing stage can be
> > entirely independent of the initial build. A user of a distribution
> > can reproduce the distribution's unsigned binaries and then use their
> > own keys to build signed binaries for their own use.
> >
> > However, the module signing certificate embedded in the kernel - even
> > if it refers to a persistent signing key, making it reproducible - has
> > to be established before the initial build, so it doesn't allow for
> > users to use a different root of trust. So there ought to be an option
> > to require signatures but without defining any trusted keys at build
> > time.
>
> With Mehmet Kayaalp's patches memory can be reserved for adding keys
> post build. After adding the key, the kernel would need to be
> (re-)signed.
I know, but it doesn't replace the first certificate.
Ben.
> > c4c3610 "KEYS: Reserve an extra certificate symbol for inserting without
> recompiling"
> 8e16789 "KEYS: Use the symbol value for list size, updated by
> scripts/insert-sys-cert"
>
> Mimi
>
--
Ben Hutchings
Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it
in
your own home. - Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, `Good Omens'
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-17 16:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-03 2:58 Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-03 3:24 ` Kees Cook
2016-08-03 3:32 ` Matthew Garrett
2016-08-03 4:34 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-03 4:42 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-08-03 4:46 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-03 5:15 ` Matthew Garrett
2016-08-03 8:33 ` Alexandre Belloni
2016-08-03 10:31 ` Mark Brown
2016-08-03 10:43 ` David Howells
2016-08-03 16:46 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-03 17:17 ` Matthew Garrett
2016-08-03 17:23 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-03 17:26 ` Matthew Garrett
2016-08-03 17:28 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-03 18:00 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2016-08-03 23:01 ` Ben Hutchings
2016-08-03 23:22 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-04 5:26 ` Kees Cook
2016-08-17 11:38 ` Ben Hutchings
2016-08-17 13:03 ` Mimi Zohar
2016-08-17 16:11 ` Ben Hutchings [this message]
2016-08-18 12:28 ` Mimi Zohar
2016-08-03 12:42 ` James Bottomley
2016-08-03 17:04 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-03 17:23 ` Matthew Garrett
2016-08-03 17:29 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-03 22:09 ` James Bottomley
[not found] ` <CALCETrVpCnfOJ2aXkNsOXatQAF6NG-AcJpxeYfA9wG_t2ocykg@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CALCETrWgS0XObzxfQWQbyntVEn6QF81K2TVbS4bGNyN6EcYb_A@mail.gmail.com>
2016-08-03 22:39 ` Andy Lutomirski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1471450271.13300.76.camel@decadent.org.uk \
--to=ben@decadent.org.uk \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=broonie@sirena.org.uk \
--cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
--cc=jwboyer@fedoraproject.org \
--cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox