linux-kernel - Re: [External] Re: [PATCH 2/4] kexec: add CONFING_KEXEC_PURGATORY_SKIP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CABKxMyNjHVryZ4zuTkyPcsS=WVN-vVb4YFzzq3LKgVWgf01dyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jul 2022 09:57:53 +0800
From:   黄杰 <huangjie.albert@...edance.com>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH 2/4] kexec: add CONFING_KEXEC_PURGATORY_SKIP_SIG

Does anyone know why this sha256 checksum is put here? I feel that it
is better to put it in the system call of kexec -e.
If the verification is not passed, the second kernel will not be
started, and some prompt information will be printed at the
same time, which seems to be better than when the second kernel is
started. Doing the verification operation will be more friendly,
 and it can also reduce downtime.

黄杰 <huangjie.albert@...edance.com> 于2022年7月25日周一 21:32写道：
>
> maybe a boot parameter ?
>
> Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> 于2022年7月25日周一 20:15写道：
> >
> > Hi Albert,
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 04:38:54PM +0800, Albert Huang wrote:
> > > +config KEXEC_PURGATORY_SKIP_SIG
> > > +     bool "skip kexec purgatory signature verification"
> > > +     depends on ARCH_HAS_KEXEC_PURGATORY
> > > +     help
> > > +       this options makes the kexec purgatory do  not signature verification
> > > +       which would get hundreds of milliseconds saved during kexec boot. If we can
> > > +       confirm that the data of each segment loaded by kexec will not change we may
> > > +       enable this option
> > > +
> >
> > Some grammar nits here, but actually, wouldn't it be better to make this
> > depend on some other signature things instead? Like if the parent kernel
> > actually did a big signature computation, then maybe the purgatory step
> > is needed, but if it didn't bother, then maybe you can skip it. This
> > way, you don't need a compile-time option that might change some aspect
> > of signature verification people might otherwise be relying on.
> >
> > Jason