[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <s5ha9uvi5ab.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:01:16 +0100
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, joeyli <jlee@...e.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Add firmware signature file check
At Tue, 06 Nov 2012 00:01:52 +0000,
David Howells wrote:
>
> Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> wrote:
>
> > this is a patch series to add the support for firmware signature
> > check. At this time, the kernel checks extra signature file (*.sig)
> > for each firmware, instead of embedded signature.
> > It's just a quick hack using the existing module signing mechanism,
> > thus provided only as a proof of concept for now.
>
> There is another way to do this. If you look at the patches I proposed to
> wrap keys in PE binaries, you'll find that that can handle PKCS#7 format
> messages as that's what's in the sort of signed PE binary we're dealing with.
>
> You could use this to put the firmware inside a signed-data PKCS#7 message.
Yeah, embedding the signature is more straightforward. Actually I
tried the embedded signature (just like module) at first, then a
couple of concerns arose:
- Legally unclear about "modifying" the firmware data or file,
- The signed firmware is no longer compatible with the older kernel,
thus bad for distro packaging.
thanks,
Takashi
--
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