[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <878uteecu0.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:21:19 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> writes:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:54:42 +1030
> Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>> I'm ambivalent towards out-of-tree modules, so not tempted unless I see
>> a bug report indicating a concrete problem. Then we can discuss...
>
> As I replied in another email, this is a concrete problem, and affects
> in-tree kernel modules.
>
> If you have the following in your .config:
>
> CONFIG_MODULE_SIG=y
> # CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE is not set
> # CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_ALL is not set
This means you've set the "I will arrange my own module signing" config
option:
Sign all modules during make modules_install. Without this option,
modules must be signed manually, using the scripts/sign-file tool.
comment "Do not forget to sign required modules with scripts/sign-file"
depends on MODULE_SIG_FORCE && !MODULE_SIG_ALL
Then you didn't do that. You broke it, you get to keep both pieces.
Again: is there an actual valid use case?
Rusty.
--
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