linux-kernel - Re: IMA and PQC

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

Message-ID: <1988760.1769463419@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 21:36:59 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Simo Sorce <simo@...hat.com>,
    Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
    Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
    Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>,
    Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
    linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
    linux-modules@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IMA and PQC

Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> > Further, we need to think how we're going to do PQC support in IMA -
> > particularly as the signatures are so much bigger and verification slower.
> 
> Perhaps, but these same reasons would apply to kernel modules, firmware, and
> the kernel image.  Why would IMA be special?!

Scale.  I wouldn't expect more than a couple of hundred or so kernel module
and firmware signatures - and, for the most part, that would be done once
during boot.  On the other hand, I'm assuming that a lot more IMA signatures
might need checking and maybe more frequently.

David