lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] module: signature infrastructure
Date
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 09:59 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> "Kasatkin, Dmitry" <dmitry.kasatkin@intel.com> writes:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Please read bellow...
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
>> >> OK, I took a look at the module.c parts of David and Dmitry's patchsets,
>> >> and didn't really like either, but I stole parts of David's to make
>> >> this.
>> >>
>> >> So, here's the module.c part of module signing. I hope you two got time
>> >> to discuss the signature format details? Mimi suggested a scheme where
>> >> the private key would never be saved on disk (even temporarily), but I
>> >> didn't see patches. Frankly it's something we can do later; let's aim
>> >> at getting the format right for the next merge window.
>> >
>> > In our patches key is stored on the disc in encrypted format...
>>
>> Oh, I missed that twist. Thanks for the explanation.
>>
>> On consideration, I prefer signing to be the final part of the "modules"
>> target rather than modules_install. I run the latter as root, and that
>> is wrong for doing any code generation.
>
> Agreed, but keep in mind that 'modules_install' could subsequently strip
> the module.

That had better be part of your signing step then!

Cheers,
Rusty.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-06 05:41    [W:0.701 / U:2.600 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site