Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/23] Crypto keys and module signing | From | Mimi Zohar <> | Date | Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:47:51 -0400 |
| |
On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 11:01 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:42:19 +0100, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Rusty, > > > > 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 :) > > 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. > > Thanks, > Rusty.
If you're really considering creating a new syscall, then perhaps this discussion should include passing the file descriptor instead of a buffer and signature. As I said https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/25/261, I don't know the historical reasons for passing a buffer instead of the file descriptor itself. If the file descriptor was passed, it would allow IMA-appraisal, which is in the process of being upstreamed, to verify and enforce file data and metadata integrity like on the other hooks open, execve, and mmap.
thanks,
Mimi
| |