On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 at 21:06, Eric Biggers ebiggers@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 08:42:56PM +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote:
On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 at 03:35, Eric Biggers ebiggers@kernel.org wrote:
From: Eric Biggers ebiggers@google.com
An issue that arises when migrating from builtin signatures to userspace signatures is that existing files that have builtin signatures cannot be opened unless either CONFIG_FS_VERITY_BUILTIN_SIGNATURES is disabled or the signing certificate is left in the .fs-verity keyring.
Since builtin signatures provide no security benefit when fs.verity.require_signatures=0 anyway, let's just skip the signature verification in this case.
Fixes: 432434c9f8e1 ("fs-verity: support builtin file signatures") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.4+ Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers ebiggers@google.com
fs/verity/signature.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Acked-by: Luca Boccassi bluca@debian.org
So if I can't apply https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fscrypt/20221208033548.122704-1-ebiggers@kerne... ("fsverity: mark builtin signatures as deprecated") due to IPE, wouldn't I not be able to apply this patch either? Surely IPE isn't depending on fs.verity.require_signatures=1, given that it enforces the policy itself?
I'm not sure what you mean? Skipping verification when this syscfg is disabled makes sense to me, as you noted it doesn't serve any purpose in that case.
Kind regards, Luca Boccassi