linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Load keys from signed PE binaries

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20130318131224.43ebcf542e6dea358f546198@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:12:24 +1100
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, keyrings@...ux-nfs.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Load keys from signed PE binaries

Hi Linus,

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:56:44 -0800 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:25:47AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>  - why do you bother with the MS keysigning of Linux kernel modules to
> >> begin with?
> >
> > This is not actually what the patchset implements.  All it's done here
> > is using PE files as envelopes for keys.  The usage this enables is to
> > allow for whoever makes a module (binary only or merely out of tree for
> > whatever reason) to sign it and vouch for it themselves.  That could
> > include, for example, a systemtap module.
> 
> Umm. And which part of "We already support that, using standard X.509
> certificates" did we suddenly miss?
> 
> So no. The PE file thing makes no sense what-so-ever. What you mention
> we can already do, and we already do it *better*.

So, is this enough close enough to "I will never take this" for me to
remove it from linux-next, or could further discussion persuade you?

David, if I do remove it, are there other patches in your pekey tree that
are still going forward?

I ask because the pekey tree is interacting with other trees and it does
not make sense to have those interactions in linux-next if the pekey work
is never going upstream.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped