linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] module: Introduce hash-based integrity checking

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: <ebbd79c2-50fb-4d9e-aabf-a55ea463c494@suse.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 16:09:13 +0100
From: Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, linux@...ssschuh.net
Cc: Arnout Engelen <arnout@...t.net>, arnd@...db.de, da.gomez@...sung.com,
 linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
 masahiroy@...nel.org, nathan@...nel.org, nicolas@...sle.eu,
 samitolvanen@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] module: Introduce hash-based integrity checking

On 1/10/25 20:16, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 11:52:27AM +0100, Arnout Engelen wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:37:52 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>>> What distro which is using module signatures would switch
>>> to this as an alternative instead?
>>
>> In NixOS, we disable MODULE_SIG by default (because we value
>> reproducibility over having module signatures). Enabling
>> MODULE_HASHES on systems that do not need to load out-of-tree
>> modules would be a good step forward.
>>
> 
> Mentioning this in the cover letter will also be good. So two
> distros seemt to want this.

I'm aware that folks from the reproducible build community have been
interested in this functionality [1, 2].

Some people at SUSE have been eyeing this as well. I've let them know
about this series. It would help with the mentioned build
reproducibility and from what I understood, it should also avoid in SUSE
case some bottlenecks with HSM needing to sign all modules.

I agree that we should make sure that whatever ends up added is
something that some distributions actually check it works for them and
they intend to use it.

>From the SUSE side, I can also support that the feature should work
seamlessly with the current MODULE_SIG.

[1] https://lists.reproducible-builds.org/pipermail/rb-general/2024-September/003530.html
[2] https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/linux/-/merge_requests/1

-- 
Thanks,
Petr