[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWtbiBtJPsFN3yjNxrq148yOqcOmB419tARQANBfSx75g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 10:17:02 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
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 Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure why you're bringing this up at such a late date. There
> was a kernel summit discussion led by Rusty on kernel module
> verification. The result of that discussion was to append the signature
> to the kernel modules. At the same time, Kees Cook was told to define
> an LSM kernel module hook. IMA is on that hook and can be used to
> verify kernel modules integrity based on either fiel hashes or
> signatures. The choice is yours.
I didn't notice that discussion. If I had, I would have suggested this at KS.
--Andy
--
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