Re: [PATCH 00/23] Crypto keys and module signing

[Josh Boyer]

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:41 AM, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 15:00:51 +0100, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > Why would you want multiple signatures?  That just complicates things.
>> >
>> > The code above stays pretty simple; if the signature fails, you set size
>> > to i, and loop again.  As I said, if you know exactly how you're going
>> > to strip the modules, you can avoid storing the stripped module and
>> > simply append both signatures.
>>
>> You still haven't justified it.  One of your arguments about rejecting the ELF
>> parsing version was that it was too big for no useful extra value that I could
>> justify.  Supporting multiple signatures adds extra size and complexity for no
>> obvious value.
>
> One loop is a lot easier to justify that the ELF-parsing mess.  And it
> can be done in a backwards compatible way tomorrow: old kernels will
> only check the last signature.
>
> I had assumed you'd rather maintain a stable strip util which you can
> use on kernel modules than rework your module builds.  I guess not.

Could you elaborate on this part a bit?  Do you mean integrate a
standalone strip utility in the kernel sources and maintain that for
use during module builds?  Or am I misunderstanding and you meant
something else?

I can see how that sounds simple and desirable from one aspect, but
it seems somewhat odd to me to duplicate the existing (or create from
scratch) strip utilities.

josh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/