Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:10:14 +0000 (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Ingo Molnar"
> > <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Rusty Russell" <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David Howells"
> > <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:45:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
> > 
> > 
> [...]
> > But if the kernel expects to have signed modules, and you force a
> > module to be loaded that is not signed, then you still get that
> > "forced" module taint, which is the same one as loading a module from
> > an older kernel into a newer kernel. It's a different problem, and I
> > can see having a different taint flag be more informative to kernel
> > developers in general. I would welcome that change with or without
> > letting tracepoints be set for that module.
> 
> There is one important inaccuracy in your explanation above: a
> kernel supporting signed modules, but not enforcing "sig_force",
> can load unsigned modules with a simple modprobe or insmod, without
> any "--force" argument. Therefore, tainting the module as
> "TAINT_FORCED_MODULE" is misleading.
> 

Oh! You are saying that if the kernel only *supports* signed modules,
and you load a module that is not signed, it will taint the kernel?


-- Steve
--
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/