[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1412170744560.1680@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 07:46:09 +0100 (CET)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
cc: Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, kpatch@...hat.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 0/3] Kernel Live Patching
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014, Balbir Singh wrote:
> >> Could you describe what this does to signing? I presume the patched
> >> module should cause a taint on module signing?
> >
> > Hmm, why should it?
>
> I wanted to clarify it from a different perspective
>
> If the base image is signed by X and the patched module is signed by
> Y, is that supported. What does it imply in the case of live-patching?
Why should that matter? Both are signed by keys that kernel is configured
to trust, which makes them equal (even though they are technically
different).
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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