Re: [PATCH v2] integrity: Extract secure boot enquiry function out of IMA

[Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com>]

On 7/28/25 8:17 AM, GONG Ruiqi wrote:
> On 7/26/2025 2:29 AM, Nayna Jain wrote:
>> On 7/17/25 8:29 AM, GONG Ruiqi wrote:
>>> On 7/8/2025 4:35 AM, Nayna Jain wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/25 10:07 PM, GONG Ruiqi wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>> Yes, IMA_ARCH_POLICY was not set. The testing was conducted on
>>> openEuler[1], a Linux distro mainly for arm64 & x86, and the kernel was
>>> compiled based on its own openeuler_defconfig[2], which set
>>> IMA_ARCH_POLICY to N.
>> Thanks Ruiqi for the response.
>>
>> It seems the main cause of the problem was that IMA_ARCH_POLICY config
>> wasn't enabled; and it sounds like you don't need IMA arch policies but
>> you do need the arch specific function to get the secure boot status.
>>
>> In that case, removing IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT config dependency
>> on IMA_ARCH_POLICY config and updating the corresponding help is all
>> that is needed.
> I think it doesn't solve the real problems, which are: 1. the implicit
> dependency of LOAD_UEFI_KEYS to IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT, which
> surprises people, and 2. what arch_ima_get_secureboot() does is
> essentially a stand-alone function and it's not necessarily be a part of
> IMA, but it's still controlled by IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT.
>
> I agree that adjusting Kconfig could be simpler, but breaking
> IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT's dependency to IMA_ARCH_POLICY doesn't
> help on both. If that's gonna be the way we will take, what I would
> propose is to let LOAD_UEFI_KEYS select IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT,
> which states the dependency explicitly so at least solves the problem 1.

Hi Ruiqi,

IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT is already enabled by different 
architectures. Having LOAD_UEFI_KEYS select it would help only if 
IMA_ARCH_POLICY is also selected.

Thanks & Regards,

    - Nayna