Hi all,

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:50:25 +0100 Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the integrity tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   Documentation/ABI/testing/evm
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   c7f66400f504fd5 ("Documentation: fix security related doc refs")
> 
> from the jc-docs tree and commit:
> 
>   cbad39d632b7c18 ("EVM: Allow userspace to signal an RSA key has been 
> loaded")
> 
> from the integrity tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 
> diff --cc Documentation/ABI/testing/evm
> index ca622c9aa24c,a0bbccb00736..000000000000
> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/evm
> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/evm
> @@@ -7,17 -7,36 +7,36 @@@ Description
>               HMAC-sha1 value across the extended attributes, storing the
>               value as the extended attribute 'security.evm'.
>   
> -             EVM depends on the Kernel Key Retention System to provide it
> -             with a trusted/encrypted key for the HMAC-sha1 operation.
> -             The key is loaded onto the root's keyring using keyctl.  Until
> -             EVM receives notification that the key has been successfully
> -             loaded onto the keyring (echo 1 > <securityfs>/evm), EVM
> -             can not create or validate the 'security.evm' xattr, but
> -             returns INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN.  Loading the key and signaling EVM
> -             should be done as early as possible.  Normally this is done
> -             in the initramfs, which has already been measured as part
> -             of the trusted boot.  For more information on creating and
> -             loading existing trusted/encrypted keys, refer to:
> -             Documentation/security/keys/trusted-encrypted.rst.  (A sample
> -             dracut patch, which loads the trusted/encrypted key and enables
> -             EVM, is available from http://linux-ima.sourceforge.net/#EVM.)
> +             EVM supports two classes of security.evm. The first is
> +             an HMAC-sha1 generated locally with a
> +             trusted/encrypted key stored in the Kernel Key
> +             Retention System. The second is a digital signature
> +             generated either locally or remotely using an
> +             asymmetric key. These keys are loaded onto root's
> +             keyring using keyctl, and EVM is then enabled by
> +             echoing a value to <securityfs>/evm:
> + 
> +             1: enable HMAC validation and creation
> +             2: enable digital signature validation
> +             3: enable HMAC and digital signature validation and HMAC
> +                creation
> + 
> +             Further writes will be blocked if HMAC support is enabled or
> +             if bit 32 is set:
> + 
> +             echo 0x80000002 ><securityfs>/evm
> + 
> +             will enable digital signature validation and block
> +             further writes to <securityfs>/evm.
> + 
> +             Until this is done, EVM can not create or validate the
> +             'security.evm' xattr, but returns INTEGRITY_UNKNOWN.
> +             Loading keys and signaling EVM should be done as early
> +             as possible.  Normally this is done in the initramfs,
> +             which has already been measured as part of the trusted
> +             boot.  For more information on creating and loading
> +             existing trusted/encrypted keys, refer to:
>  -            Documentation/keys-trusted-encrypted.txt. Both dracut
> ++            Documentation/security/keys/trusted-encrypted.rst. Both dracut
> +             (via 97masterkey and 98integrity) and systemd (via
> +             core/ima-setup) have support for loading keys at boot
> +             time.

Just a reminder that this conflict still exists (and is now relevant to
the security tree).

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Reply via email to