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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CALLzPKYCZfYm6cKAoM64jODFJDzZTV7gvHUNpF-jOtdZ=aDMsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:30:33 +0300
From:	"Kasatkin, Dmitry" <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, kyle@...artin.ca,
	zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, 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 Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:35:56 +0100, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > > If you prefer to have userspace extract the module signature and pass it in
>> > > uargs, here's a tree that will do that:
>> > >
>> > >   http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-modsign.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/modsign-uarg
>> >
>> > OK, there's merit in this approach: it certainly moves the argument
>> > about how to encode the signature out of my backyard :)
>>
>> Not really.  The signature still has to be created by the kernel build.  It's
>> just that you no longer have to care about the trade off when it comes to
>> parsing it.
>
> Yes, exactly.
>
>> > Should we just bite the bullet and create a new syscall:
>> >
>> > SYSCALL_DEFINE5(init_module2, void __user *, umod,
>> >             unsigned long, len, const char __user *, uargs,
>> >                 unsigned int, siglen, const char __user *, sig)
>> >
>> > But I'm easily swayed if you prefer the current approach.
>>
>> "The current approach" being to attach signature to the blob?  Or to pass the
>> signature separately but in the uargs?
>
> The former.
>
>> I would very much prefer to keep the signature in the blob and have the kernel
>> extract it as there's no particular need for it to be detached - even if you
>> are using IMA.
>>
>> However, I don't think an extra syscall would hurt particularly - except that
>> it uses up more space in the syscall table...  It would, however, be smaller
>> in the signature verification department as the signature neither needs
>> decoding from uargs nor extracting from the blob.
>
> Good.  Let's have init_module2(), and let userspace decide where to get
> the signature from.
>

Nice.

> Thanks,
> Rusty.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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/