[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1505192343280.8186@pobox.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 19 May 2015 23:47:02 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
cc:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	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>
Subject: Re: Should we automatically generate a module signing key at all?
On Tue, 19 May 2015, David Howells wrote:
> That wouldn't very convenient for building our kernels in our build farm 
> - we have a lot of machines and all of them would have to be equiped 
> with the key.  Besides, we *want* to discard the private key where 
> possible as soon as possible because then we can't leak it and we can't 
> be forced to disclose it.
You can still have a dedicated machine that's used just for signing the 
binaries. That machine wouldn't be connected to the network, would be 
physically secured, and would sign through a serial line or so.
-- 
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
 
