Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] Asymmetric keys and module signing | Date | Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:42:59 +0930 |
| |
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> writes:
> Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > >> We do a very simple search for a particular string appended to the module >> (which is cache-hot and about to be SHA'd anyway). There's both a config >> option and a boot parameter which control whether we accept (and taint) or >> fail with unsigned modules. > > I've adjusted your patch description to this: > > We do a very simple search for a particular string appended to the module > (which is cache-hot and about to be SHA'd anyway). There's both a config > option and a boot parameter which control whether we accept or fail with > unsigned modules and modules that are signed with an unknown key. > > If module signing is enabled, the kernel will be tainted if a module is > accepted that is unsigned or has a signature for which we don't have the > key. > > I think it's worth mentioning the policy for unknown keys and worth making > clear under what circumstances we mean the kernel to be tainted.
Great! I checked your Kconfig help, too, which is states it clearly:
config MODULE_SIG_FORCE bool "Require modules to be validly signed" depends on MODULE_SIG help Reject unsigned modules or signed modules for which we don't have a key. Without this, such modules will simply taint the kernel.
Which is really nice, since the kernel Kconfig help messages tend to suck.
Thanks, Rusty.
| |