[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALLzPKb-qpAJCThHxukEUGGhOWUTxr5wCP7C1MmZfNZrdMViGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:56:02 +0300
From: "Kasatkin, Dmitry" <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>
To: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.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 Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com> wrote:
> 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
Hi,
I had enable and enforce mode in my previous patches.
I have removed them just before posting.
I added now enforcing back..
- Dmitry
--
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