mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
Cc: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>,
	"David Howells" <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	"David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	"Eric Snowberg" <eric.snowberg@oracle.com>,
	keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Mark Pearson" <markpearson@lenovo.com>,
	linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] certs: log hash value on blacklist error
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 02:59:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8b9e9bf8-ae44-485a-9b30-85a71a236f06@t-8ch.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y4QK2cmptp4vpRj/@kernel.org>

On 2022-11-28 03:11+0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> "Make blacklisted hash available in klog"
> 
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 05:03:41AM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > Without this information these logs are not actionable.
> 
> Without blacklisted hash?
> 
> > For example on duplicate blacklisted hashes reported by the system
> > firmware users should be able to report the erroneous hashes to their
> > system vendors.
> > 
> > While we are at it use the dedicated format string for ERR_PTR.
> 
> Lacks the beef so saying "while we are at it" makes no sense.

What about this:

  [PATCH] certs: make blacklisted hash available in klog

  One common situation triggering this log statement are duplicate hashes
  reported by the system firmware.

  These duplicates should be removed from the firmware.

  Without logging the blacklisted hash triggering the issue however the users
  can not report it properly to the firmware vendors and the firmware vendors
  can not easily see which specific hash is duplicated.

  While changing the log message also use the dedicated ERR_PTR format
  placeholder for the returned error value.

> > Fixes: 6364d106e041 ("certs: Allow root user to append signed hashes to the blacklist keyring")
> 
> Why does this count as a bug?

These error logs are confusing to users, prompting them to waste time
investigating them and even mess with their firmware settings.
(As indicated in the threads linked from the cover letter)

The most correct fix would be patches 2 and 3 from this series.

I was not sure if patch 2 would be acceptable for stable as it introduces new
infrastructure code.
So patch 1 enables users to report the issue to their firmware vendors and get
the spurious logs resolved that way.

If these assumptions are incorrect I can fold patch 1 into patch 3.

But are patch 2 and 3 material for stable?

> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@weissschuh.net>
> > ---
> >  certs/blacklist.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/certs/blacklist.c b/certs/blacklist.c
> > index 41f10601cc72..6e260c4b6a19 100644
> > --- a/certs/blacklist.c
> > +++ b/certs/blacklist.c
> > @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ static int mark_raw_hash_blacklisted(const char *hash)
> >  				   KEY_ALLOC_NOT_IN_QUOTA |
> >  				   KEY_ALLOC_BUILT_IN);
> >  	if (IS_ERR(key)) {
> > -		pr_err("Problem blacklisting hash (%ld)\n", PTR_ERR(key));
> > +		pr_err("Problem blacklisting hash %s: %pe\n", hash, key);
> >  		return PTR_ERR(key);
> >  	}
> >  	return 0;
> > -- 
> > 2.38.1
> > 
> 
> BR, Jarkko

  reply	other threads:[~2022-11-28  1:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-18  4:03 [PATCH v3 0/3] certs: Prevent spurious errors on repeated blacklisting Thomas Weißschuh
2022-11-18  4:03 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] certs: log hash value on blacklist error Thomas Weißschuh
2022-11-28  1:11   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2022-11-28  1:59     ` Thomas Weißschuh [this message]
2022-12-04 16:53       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2022-11-18  4:03 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] KEYS: Add key_create() Thomas Weißschuh
2022-11-28  1:12   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2022-11-18  4:03 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] certs: don't try to update blacklist keys Thomas Weißschuh
2022-12-12 12:29 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] certs: Prevent spurious errors on repeated blacklisting Paul Menzel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=8b9e9bf8-ae44-485a-9b30-85a71a236f06@t-8ch.de \
    --to=linux@weissschuh.net \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=eric.snowberg@oracle.com \
    --cc=jarkko@kernel.org \
    --cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=markpearson@lenovo.com \
    --cc=mic@digikod.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®