Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PULL] modules-next | Date | Tue, 02 Aug 2016 09:40:14 +0930 |
| |
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes: > So this feels wrong to me, can you guys please explain: > > On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: >> >> Ben Hutchings (3): >> module: Invalidate signatures on force-loaded modules >> module: Disable MODULE_FORCE_LOAD when MODULE_SIG_FORCE is enabled > > forcing a load and SIG_FORCE are entirely independent issues, afaik. I > think requiring signed modules is just a good idea. But that doesn't > necessarily mean that you don't have a signed module that is signed > with a key you trust, but you still want to force-load it for the > wrong kernel version (ie maybe you have a binary-only module from your > IT department (and your IT department is evil,but at least they sign > it to show that the module is trust-worthy as coming from them, even > if they have some dubious behavior), but you did some kernel updates > that still allow the module to work but the version doesn't match any > more). > > Am I missing something? What's the connection between > MODULE_FORCE_LOAD and MODULE_SIG_FORCE? Because it smells like they > are independent and that the above changes are very very dubious. > > I didn't actually pull the tree, I just reacted to the pull request itself.
Well, MODULE_FORCE_LOAD is really "I am a doing crazy shit", and MODULE_SIG_FORCE is "Don't let me do crazy shit".
You have to contrive pretty hard to get a situation where the combination makes sense, so I tend to let Ben worry about the module signing stuff.
I can pull them out of modules-next if you'd prefer.
Cheers, Rusty.
| |