Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: Should we automatically generate a module signing key at all? | Date | Wed, 20 May 2015 14:31:29 +0930 |
| |
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> writes: > On 05/18/2015 09:20 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:04 AM, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Should we instead provide a script: >>> >>> ./scripts/generate-key >>> >>> That generates a key if run and make it so that the build fails if you turn on >>> module signing and there's no key. >> >> That would just be stupid. >> >> I'm not ever applying a patch like that. That would absolutely destroy >> the sane "git clean + rebuild" model. >> >> Why the hell would you want to make the sane case that people actually >> *use* be harder to use. >> >> Nobody sane bothers with long-term keys. They are inconvenient and less secure. >> >> Put the onus on making it inconvenient on those people who actually >> have special keys, not on normal people. >> > > I think we should get rid of the idea of automatically generated signing > keys entirely. Instead I think we should generate, at build time, a > list of all the module hashes and link that into vmlinux.
Yep, suggested that long ago. But people want signatures, because the actual push for pubkeys was never the temp-pubkey model.
Cheers, Rusty.
| |