linux-kernel - Re: Should we automatically generate a module signing key at all?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFx+bN4kiFtxwE09yDbNZd7KLwAYUUh=f9p20QhGPzGiQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 May 2015 09:22:14 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	Abelardo Ricart III <aricart@...nix.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>, keyrings@...ux-nfs.org,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Should we automatically generate a module signing key at all?

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:19 AM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> I prefer the other solution I suggested a few minutes ago — let
> signing_key.{priv,x509} be autogenerated, and if the user wants to
> provide their own then let them call it something else.

Absolutely. And external keys probably shouldn't be in the build tree
at all, they should be a pointer to outside the build tree (ie "I have
my magic kernel key on the USB key that I mount at xyz").

               Linus
--
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/