MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20121102132318.GA3300@redhat.com>
References: <20121025185520.GA17995@redhat.com>
	<1351214158.18115.186.camel@falcor>
	<20121026023916.GA16762@srcf.ucam.org>
	<20121026170609.GB24687@redhat.com>
	<1351276649.18115.217.camel@falcor>
	<20121101131003.GA14573@redhat.com>
	<20121101135356.GA15659@redhat.com>
	<1351780159.15708.17.camel@falcor>
	<20121101144304.GA15821@redhat.com>
	<20121101145225.GB10269@srcf.ucam.org>
	<20121102132318.GA3300@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 19:59:15 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKTCnzkQwhWGJRTiuxv8wp7uPDFoT6eGsN0k51Bvw8=EqQFW=w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kdump with signed images
From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Khalid Aziz <khalid@gonehiking.org>, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
        horms@verge.net.au, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@intel.com>,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@polito.it>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1787
Lines: 42

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 02:52:25PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 10:43:04AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>
>> > So I think this does satisfy the requirement matthew specified. Isn't it?
>> > Matthew, what do you think?
>>
>> Sure, if you can ensure that. You'll need to figure out how to get the
>> build system to sign the userspace binaries and you'll need to ensure
>> that they're statically linked and don't dlopen anything (including the
>> nsswitch modules), but otherwise that should work.
>>
>
> [ CC peter jones ]
>
> Ok, so even if we build kexec-tools statically with glibc, we have the
> issue of name service switch modules. glibc will still do dlopen on
> these modules. So what are options now.
>
> - Sign glibc and associated shared libraries. Do not allow unsigned
>   shared library to dynamically link with signed executable.
>
> - Peter mentioned that work with uClibc for kexec-tools.
>
> I personally think that however hard it is but first option sounds like
> a long term solution. We might have more user space processes which
> we might have to trust a generic solution will help with that. For example,
> we might have to sign and trust qemu at some point of time.
>
> Are there other ways of handing glibc issue?
>

Have you seen http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/FAQ - "Even statically
linked programs need some shared libraries which is not acceptable for
me. What can I do?" Probably, worth trying.

Balbir Singh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/