linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] MODSIGN: Kernel 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:55:41 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, herbert.xu@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arjan@...radead.org,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] MODSIGN: Kernel module signing

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:13:45 EST, Dave Jones said:
> One argument in its favour is aparently Red Hat isn't the only vendor
> with something like this.  I've not investigated it, but I hear rumours
> that suse has something similar.  Having everyone using the same code
> would be a win for obvious reasons.

Another argument in its favor is that it actually allows the kernel to
implement *real* checking of module licenses and trumps all the proposals
to deal with MODULE_LICENSE("GPL\0Haha!").  A vendor (or user) that wants
to be *sure* that only *really really* GPL modules are loaded can simply
refuse to load unsigned modules - and then refuse to sign a module until
after they had themselves visited the source's website, verified that the
source code was available under GPL, and so on.

Remember - the GPL is about the availability of the source.  And at modprobe
time, the source isn't available.  So you're left with two options:

1) Trust the binary to not lie to you about its license.
2) Ask a trusted 3rd party (usually, the person/distro that built the kernel)
whether they've verified the claim that it's really GPL.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped