[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Fw: signed kernel modules?
    On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Josh Boyer wrote:

    > On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 10:53, Gene Heskett wrote:
    >>> cd linux-2.6;
    >>> patch -R -p1 < ../<modsign patch name>
    >>> josh
    >> Yes, but what happens if it gets into the tarballs from
    >> Stop this nonsense Linus, now.
    > While my original post was more of a symbolic "I think you're being a
    > bit over-dramatic" response, it's still valid once it's in a tarball
    > too. A tarball is just source that has the patch applied...
    > I personally don't see anything wrong with concept of signed modules.
    > Make it a config option and call it good. I'd probably never run with
    > signed modules with a kernel I built myself, but that's my choice.
    > Others can choose differently.
    > Let's separate the technical details from the opinions about whether
    > such a feature will end the free world as we know it or not. (Which it
    > won't).
    > josh

    The technical details are that "signed", "sealed", "certified",
    relate to policy. For years policy was not allowed to be included in
    the kernel. In recent times, the kernel has become filthy with

    For instance, a simple module that implements open/close has this

    00000000 r __mod_license23
    00000047 r __module_depends
    00000020 r __mod_vermagic5
    00000000 D __this_module
    00000000 r ____versions

    ... used to enforce somebody's policy (whoever wrote the latest
    module code), not your policy nor my policy, just someone's policy
    which becomes the de-facto kernel "law". That's why there must
    not be policy in the kernel because it's not possible to get
    it right. What's right for you is wrong for another.

    We let this start when there were problems with secret video
    modules. Nobody wanted to debug a kernel that could be corrupted
    by a module where nobody could read the source-code. So if there
    isn't a MODULE_LICENSE("POLICY") then a 'tainted' mark goes
    in any OOPS report. Well, they got away with that. It was
    explained away as being "good" policy. Now they are making
    more policy.

    And, yes, the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it, comes one interval
    at a time.

    Dick Johnson
    Penguin : Linux version 2.6.8 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
    Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.049 / U:7.296 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site