[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070215062218.GA917@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:22:18 -0500
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
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, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:14:53PM -0800, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 February 2007 21:45, Dave Jones wrote:
> > well, the situation for external modules is no worse than usual.
> > They still work, they just aren't signed. Which from a distributor point
> > of view, is actually a nice thing, as they stick out like a sore thumb
> > in oops reports with (U) markers :)
>
> I agree, that's really what should happen. We solve this by marking modules as
> supported, partner supported, or unsupported, but in an "insecure" way, so
> partners and users could try to fake the support status of a module and/or
> remove status flags from Oopses, and cryptography wouldn't save us. We could
> try to sign Oopses which I guess you guys are doing. This whole issue hasn't
> been a serious problem in the past though, and we generally try to trust
> users not to play games on us.
For the most part it works out. I've had users file oopses where they've editted
out Tainted: P, and left in nvidia(U) for example :-)
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists