lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:10:14 +0000 (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> > To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>
> > Cc: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Ingo Molnar"
> > <mingo@redhat.com>, "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>, "Rusty Russell" <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, "David Howells"
> > <dhowells@redhat.com>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:45:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
> >
> >
> [...]
> > But if the kernel expects to have signed modules, and you force a
> > module to be loaded that is not signed, then you still get that
> > "forced" module taint, which is the same one as loading a module from
> > an older kernel into a newer kernel. It's a different problem, and I
> > can see having a different taint flag be more informative to kernel
> > developers in general. I would welcome that change with or without
> > letting tracepoints be set for that module.
>
> There is one important inaccuracy in your explanation above: a
> kernel supporting signed modules, but not enforcing "sig_force",
> can load unsigned modules with a simple modprobe or insmod, without
> any "--force" argument. Therefore, tainting the module as
> "TAINT_FORCED_MODULE" is misleading.
>

Oh! You are saying that if the kernel only *supports* signed modules,
and you load a module that is not signed, it will taint the kernel?


-- Steve


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-13 17:01    [W:0.201 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site