[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150519160917.GD7549@localhost>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 19:09:17 +0300
From: Petko Manolov <petkan@...-labs.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
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>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: Should we automatically generate a module signing key at all?
On 15-05-19 11:55:32, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> So I'm really curious --- are there significant numbers of people
> doing kernel builds, besides distro kernel engineers, who would use
> module signing? If so, them sure, let's spend time optimizing so that
> it's really easy for those folks. If not, maybe it's simpler just
> make things easy for people who will be storing the key in some
> external hardware device, and just be done with it.
I am working on a project that requires kernel module authenticity. Building
monolithic kernel is not an option. It is also highly customized system where
uptime is very important. The machine is going to be exposed to all the fun of
contemporary Internet connectivity so every piece of code or data on this box
must be measured and authenticated prior to accessing it.
I do agree that this is not the common case, though.
cheers,
Petko
--
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