lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] Asymmetric keys and module signing
Date
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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-27 04:41    [W:0.118 / U:0.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site