lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Should we automatically generate a module signing key at all?
From
Date
On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 11:49 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> If we use hashes instead of signatures on in-tree modules (at least in
> the case where no long-term key is provided), then generation of the
> temporary signing key stops being an issue because there is no longer
> a temporary signing key.

With signatures I can make a one-line change to a module and rebuild it,
and still load it without having to rebuild my vmlinux to 'permit' it.

My signing key is valid for as long as I *choose* it to be valid.

I appreciate why that's a problem in your scenario, but it's a valid and
useful feature of signatures, and I don't think we can just abandon it.

--
dwmw2




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-19 22:21    [W:0.075 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site