[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131121191305.GK16208@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:13:05 -0500
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com, hpa@...or.com,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] kexec: A new system call, kexec_file_load, for in
kernel kexec
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 07:06:20PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:03:50AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > This could be done as we do with modules, and just tack the signature
> > onto the end of the 'blob' of the image. That way we could use the same
> > tool to sign the binary as we do for modules, and save the need for
> > extra parameters in the syscall.
>
> That would require a certain degree of massaging from userspace if we
> want to be able to use the existing Authenticode signatures. Otherwise
> we need to sign kernels twice.
I was thinking oof signing the same kernel twice. Can I sign authenticode
signed kernel again (using RSA signature as we do for modules) and append
the signature to bzImage.
I am wondering if authenticode signature verification will fail due
to this extra signature at the end of bzImage. pjones thought that it
will break authenticode signature verification. CCing him.
Thanks
Vivek
--
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