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

[David Howells]

Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>         That's pretty weird.  Why not put the "@This Is A Crypto Signed
> Module\n" before the signature?  Then module-size is implied: everything
> before that signature.  The signature size is implied: everything after
> that signature.

This makes it simpler.  No scanning required.  The magic number can only be in
one place and you can find it by dead reckoning.

>         In fact, I'd modify this slightly, to allow multiple signatures.
> This would work nicely with a deterministic strip.  Find the signatures
> backward, and truncate as they fail.

Why would you want multiple signatures?  That just complicates things.  If
you're in FIPS mode, you probably have to panic if any of them fail.

I suppose I may as well punt the signature detection and removal to userspace
and pass the signature as an argument to init_module() as Dmitry suggested.
Then the signature need not be in the file at all (he wants to use an xattr or
hardware, I think).  mkinitrd and rpmbuild/kernel spec have to be changed to
accommodate enablement of these patches, so why not module-init-tools, dracut
and busybox whilst we're at it?

David
--
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/