[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1432060732.3277.77.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 19:38:52 +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 11:12 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> With your proposal, I need to trust that whoever built the actual
> running kernel image really did throw away the key.
Ah right, that makes sense.
So it might make sense to use the LSM hook for checking hashes then.
It's kind of orthogonal to the *signing* discussion though.
--
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