[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1416841165.25352.42.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 09:59:25 -0500
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: mmarek@...e.cz, d.kasatkin@...sung.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
vgoyal@...hat.com, keyrings@...ux-nfs.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] PKCS#7: Allow detached data to be supplied for
signature checking purposes
On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 14:41 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Ok, PCKS#7 supports detached data. I assume this is not needed for
> > > > kernel modules. What is the motivation for adding this support to the
> > > > kernel?
> > >
> > > See patch #5. I should probably note that in the commit message.
> >
> > This patch set does not change the syscall. The signature is still
> > appended to the kernel module.
>
> Ummm, yes, so?
>
> > In fact, the call from kernel/module_signing.c: mod_verify_pkcs7() calls
> > pkcs7_supply_detached_data() with a pointer to the module and the module
> > length to set the data field. pkcs7_supply_detached_data() would not be
> > defined or exported, unless it was going to be called elsewhere. How else
> > are you planning on using pkcs7_supply_detached_data()?
>
> Is your point that I exported it unnecessarily? That I have now fixed.
No, it was more a comment on the function name
pkcs7_supply_detached_data() being a bit weird, as the signature is
appended to the data.
Mimi
--
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