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

[Lakshmi Ramasubramanian]

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