[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+5PVA4i6CYNmxbHHfgEYqPHVD=_PDqurFyrZzzL5jb0rdVj8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:49:28 -0400
From: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>
To: Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>
Cc: zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jmorris@...ei.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
dhowells@...hat.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 4/7] modsig: add integrity_module_check hook
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Dmitry Kasatkin
<dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com> wrote:
> @@ -2437,6 +2438,14 @@ static int copy_and_check(struct load_info *info,
>
> info->hdr = hdr;
> info->len = len;
> +
> + err = integrity_module_check(hdr, len);
> + if (err < 0)
> + goto free_hdr;
> +
> + /* cut signature tail */
> + info->len = err;
> +
> return 0;
>
> free_hdr:
So if I'm reading this correctly, any module that fails signature
verification will fail to load. That makes sense, but I wonder if you
intend to support a non-enforcing mode for module signatures at all?
Actually, a brief document in Documentation describing how this whole
mechanism works and what the fail states are would be good. David's
patches have it nicely spelled out and I don't see anything similar in
your patch set.
josh
--
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