lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 21/21] MODSIGN: Apply signature checking to modules on module load [ver #3]
Date
Rusty Russell <rusty@ozlabs.org> wrote:

> And adds a great deal of code in a supposedly security-sensitive path to
> achieve it.
>
> How about simply append a signature to the module? That'd be about 20 lines
> of code to carefully check the bounds of the module to figure out where the
> signature is. You could even allow multiple signatures, then have one for
> stripped, and one for non-stripped versions.

A big chunk of the code is dealing with the cryptographic bits - and you need
those anyway - and if it's done right it can be shared with other things
(eCryptfs for example; maybe CIFS from what Steve French said) and auxiliary
keys can be stored in places other than the kernel (the TPM for example).

> Sure, you now need to re-append that after stripping, but that's not the
> kernel's problem.

You may also have to remove the signature before passing it to any binutils
tool lest it malfunction on the trailer - and would you also have to modify
insmod and modprobe? I suspect they parse the ELF to find out about parameters
and things.

I've found that rpmbuild and mkinitrd alter the module files at various times,
so you'd need a bunch of signatures, one for each (may just be two, but I can't
guarantee that). This means the kernel build process needs to know what
transformations are going to be applied to a module - something that has
changed occasionally within the distribution I use and may vary between
distributions (or even just someone building for themselves).

David


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-09 19:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans