[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1432065634.3277.81.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 21:00:34 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
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>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: Should we automatically generate a module signing key at all?
On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 11:49 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> If we use hashes instead of signatures on in-tree modules (at least in
> the case where no long-term key is provided), then generation of the
> temporary signing key stops being an issue because there is no longer
> a temporary signing key.
With signatures I can make a one-line change to a module and rebuild it,
and still load it without having to rebuild my vmlinux to 'permit' it.
My signing key is valid for as long as I *choose* it to be valid.
I appreciate why that's a problem in your scenario, but it's a valid and
useful feature of signatures, and I don't think we can just abandon it.
--
dwmw2
--
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