linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/23] Crypto keys and module signing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 05 Jun 2012 09:53:30 +0930
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, kyle@...artin.ca,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...ux-nfs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] Crypto keys and module signing

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:38:43 -0400, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> > Mangling a module after it is signed is very odd, and odd things aren't
> > nice for security features.  That's how we got here; I'm trying to move
> > the oddness out of the verification path.
> 
> It's unfortunate, yes.  The biggest case I can think of is splitting
> the debug symbols out of the modules after they are built (David might
> have other cases).  Perhaps we could upstream that as well and
> organize it such that the modules are built, split for debuginfo, and
> then signed?

That was my original suggestion.  Just prepare all the module variants
at build time, and sign them all.

See: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/10/16

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/