[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKTCnz=tA9LyGpOvM9LyBp+oBDTsW6t+=2C80On+-ysfRBpDqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 13:22:21 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
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, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> wrote:
> 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).
>
I am not sure they are equal, others can comment
Balbir Singh
--
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