lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/23] Crypto keys and module signing
    From
    Date
    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



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-06-04 15:21    [W:0.031 / U:1.236 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site