lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/23] Crypto keys and module signing
Date
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:35:56 +0100, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > If you prefer to have userspace extract the module signature and pass it in
> > > uargs, here's a tree that will do that:
> > >
> > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-modsign.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/modsign-uarg
> >
> > OK, there's merit in this approach: it certainly moves the argument
> > about how to encode the signature out of my backyard :)
>
> Not really. The signature still has to be created by the kernel build. It's
> just that you no longer have to care about the trade off when it comes to
> parsing it.

Yes, exactly.

> > Should we just bite the bullet and create a new syscall:
> >
> > SYSCALL_DEFINE5(init_module2, void __user *, umod,
> > unsigned long, len, const char __user *, uargs,
> > unsigned int, siglen, const char __user *, sig)
> >
> > But I'm easily swayed if you prefer the current approach.
>
> "The current approach" being to attach signature to the blob? Or to pass the
> signature separately but in the uargs?

The former.

> I would very much prefer to keep the signature in the blob and have the kernel
> extract it as there's no particular need for it to be detached - even if you
> are using IMA.
>
> However, I don't think an extra syscall would hurt particularly - except that
> it uses up more space in the syscall table... It would, however, be smaller
> in the signature verification department as the signature neither needs
> decoding from uargs nor extracting from the blob.

Good. Let's have init_module2(), and let userspace decide where to get
the signature from.

Thanks,
Rusty.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-10 09:21    [W:0.202 / U:0.504 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site