Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Should we automatically generate a module signing key at all? | From | David Woodhouse <> | Date | Tue, 19 May 2015 21:00:34 +0100 |
| |
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
| |