[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87d31ufy47.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:16:48 +0930
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] module: add syscall to load module from fd
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> This method is a consistent and extensible approach to verifying the
>> integrity of file data/metadata, including kernel modules. The only
>> downside to this approach, I think, is that it requires changes to the
>> userspace tool.
>
> I'm fine with this -- it's an expected change that I'll pursue with
> glibc, kmod, etc. Without the userspace changes, nothing will use the
> new syscall. :) I've already got kmod (and older module-init-tools)
> patched to do this locally.
A syscall is the right way to do this. But does it need to be done?
1) Do the LSM guys really want this hook?
2) Do we have a userspace which uses it?
If yes to both, and noone comes up with any creative complaints, I will
take the patch.
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
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