[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
On 02/13/2014 04:44 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:36:35 -0500
> (Frank Ch. Eigler) wrote:
>> rostedt wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> 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?
>> Yes: this is the default for several distros.
> Rusty, Ingo,
> This looks like a bug to me, as it can affect even in-tree kernel
> modules. If you have a kernel that supports signed modules, and you
> modify a module, recompile it, apply it, since it is no longer signed,
> then it sounds like we just tainted it. Worse yet, we just disabled any
> tracepoints on that module, which means it is even harder to debug that
> module (if that's the reason you recompiled it in the first place).

When I stumbled upon this issue a while ago on Fedora 19 I built my
kernel rpm packages which generates a signature key (.priv and .x509),
which I kept safe with the kernel headers. When building recompiling
modules I refer to it with MODSECKEY and MODPUBKEY, ie.

$ make MODSECKEY=bla MODPUBKEY=duh \
M=drivers/net/wireless/brcm80211 modules

Or sign it manually using the sign-file perl script:

mod_sign_cmd = perl $(srctree)/scripts/sign-file \

Of course I could disable signed modules while building a new kernel,
but I was in it for the ride (I had better ones) ;-)

Gr. AvS

> -- Steve
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to
> More majordomo info at
> Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-13 23:21    [W:0.047 / U:2.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site