Re: Linux Firmware Signing

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:38:58AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@suse.com> wrote:
> 
> > "PKCS#7: Add an optional authenticated attribute to hold firmware name"
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/commit/?h=fwsign-pkcs7&id=1448377a369993f864915743cfb34772e730213good
> > 
> >         1.3.6.1.4.1.2312.16     Linux kernel
> >         1.3.6.1.4.1.2312.16.2   - PKCS#7/CMS SignerInfo attribute types
> >         1.3.6.1.4.1.2312.16.2.1   - firmwareName
> > 
> > I take it you are referring to this?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > If we follow this model we'd then need something like:
> > 
> >         1.3.6.1.4.1.2312.16.2.2   - seLinuxPolicyName
> > 
> > That should mean each OID that has different file names would need to be
> > explicit about and have a similar entry on the registry. I find that pretty
> > redundant and would like to avoid that if possible.
> 
> firmwareName is easy for people to understand - it's the name the kernel asks
> for and the filename of the blob.  seLinuxPolicyName is, I think, a lot more
> tricky since a lot of people don't use SELinux, and most that do don't
> understand it (most people that use it aren't even really aware of it).
> 
> If you can use the firmwareName as the SELinux/LSM key, I would suggest doing
> so - even if you dress it up as a path (/lib/firmware/<firmwareName>).

It seems we don't have to worry about it now, and perhaps SELinux folks might
go another route.

  Luis