[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50F080C6.5070206@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:14:46 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
"maxim.uvarov@...cle.com" <maxim.uvarov@...cle.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 00/11] xen: Initial kexec/kdump implementation
On 01/11/2013 01:08 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>
>> A signed /sbin/kexec would realistically have to be statically linked,
>> at least in the short term; otherwise the libraries and ld.so would need
>> verification as well.
>
> Yes. That's the expectation. Sign only statically linked exeutables which
> don't do any of dlopen() stuff either.
>
> In fact in the patch, I fail the exec() if signed executable has
> interpreter.
>
As I said, though (and possibly not for kexec, that depends): in the
long term we probably want a way to be able to sign all kinds binaries
in the system.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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