[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131121192447.GO16208@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:24:47 -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 07:19:07PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 02:13:05PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 07:06:20PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> No, you'd need to do it the other way around.
Then I can't assume that RSA signatures are appened to bzImage, as we
do for modules.
Also I am assuming that authenticode signing will change something in
PE/COFF header and that would invalidate the bzImage signature.
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