From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1F5EB64DD for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 09:17:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234080AbjGMJRV (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2023 05:17:21 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46178 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233932AbjGMJRT (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2023 05:17:19 -0400 Received: from desiato.infradead.org (desiato.infradead.org [IPv6:2001:8b0:10b:1:d65d:64ff:fe57:4e05]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F5EF1BEB for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 02:17:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=h06qPR0arlbUfd9D1oOiKIFmgreKcx0kfXCJd2RsPps=; b=PRbX94DiNwyui0gBuvyKQXV+uf 3scrOndug2Z/LVkQmBOqtgV5xFQ6c/+bdc6LfkzPT31yrF8vHdM29dA5FFi9/HVc2IpVuHVjqIVTv b1ck/z4mht9owjFosLGlru0jYfkkKhvKVP2eHKcpeel4oos2pSApg7TbojL5N4g+OpOqQIun+Dlh9 6g1fUfnUILN7B1PUiKtvhon6VM/g/bkNE7YSRaGr15jOv47RTsOKlHdRY7sNr5Btvc8P/AxhdG07j SqwVnLk4EJxXaJtHmECAaogjGUTMLfxp8VuDw419TICf4JLhPMpPLdL1Bm8AG/XrvTdFgKBKNOkC9 M+Fnl5Hw==; Received: from j130084.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.130.84] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qJsRD-004aaI-0N; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 09:16:39 +0000 Received: from hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net [192.168.1.225]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 688C930007E; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 11:16:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: by hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4CF5A245CA117; Thu, 13 Jul 2023 11:16:37 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 11:16:37 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Vitaly Kuznetsov Cc: Greg KH , Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito , x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , bluca@debian.org, lennart@poettering.net, Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , Masahiro Yamada , Alexander Potapenko , Nick Desaulniers , Daniel P =?iso-8859-1?Q?=2E_Berrang=E9?= , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] x86/boot: add .sbat section to the bzImage Message-ID: <20230713091637.GE3138667@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20230711154449.1378385-1-eesposit@redhat.com> <2023071237-private-overhang-7f86@gregkh> <875y6o429i.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <875y6o429i.fsf@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:57:45AM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > this was an RFC to answer a fairly straitforward question: is upstream > Linux interested in / is a suitable place for having SBAT revocation > mechanism or not. If only it would have actually had that question in :/ But then we would've still had the whole WTF is a SBAT(SHIT) and why should we care discussion. Fundamentally, I don't think upstream can care; upstream doesn't have a signing key, it will never be revoked, bumping the upstream number doesn't make sense -- ever. > We can, of course, iron out the details whether it > should be "linux.org"/"linux.com"/"lore.kernel.org/lkml/" or > "linux.onion" and where to put objcopy call, whether to silence its Seriously ?!? kernel.org is the only sane option here, none of the others make any damn sense. > output or not but these are rather implemntation details. I don't > particularly see why anyone would need to get additional sign-offs to > just ask a question (which I don actually think was asked before!) and > IMO an RFC/patch is usually the best way to do so. But there wasn't no question, was there. There isn't a single '?' in that thing. And it starts of with random implementation detail blabber. > Following the discussion, it seems that at least x86 maintainer[s] are > opposed to the very idea of having SBAT revocation mechanism integrated > upstream because it's hard to meaningfully define what epoch is. This is > OK (which doesn't mean we all agree to that) but as there's real need to > revoke "bad" (in UEFI SecureBoot sense) kernels, distros will likely > come up with their custom, downstream only ways to do it. Without an > upstream reference, however, they may come up with very differently > looking SBAT sections, this may or may not be problematic in the future, > who knows. Well, if the various stake-holders can't even agree on things, things are very bleak indeed. I just don't see why upstream would want/need to carry any of this because it has no meaning to us, we don't play in the secure boot pen, not haz key etc.. (for good reasons IIUC).