Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751338Ab3IJSvw (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:51:52 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:38967 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750873Ab3IJSvu (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:51:50 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 11:51:49 -0700 From: "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Matthew Garrett , Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , David Lang , "Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "keescook@chromium.org" , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "jmorris@namei.org" , "linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown Message-ID: <20130910185149.GC5559@kroah.com> References: <1378767723.17982.27.camel@x230.lan> <1378774394.17982.36.camel@x230.lan> <1378781715.17982.42.camel@x230.lan> <1378785208.17982.54.camel@x230.lan> <20130910172318.GB21530@khazad-dum.debian.net> <1378837571.17615.0.camel@x230.lan> <522F6519.4030004@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <522F6519.4030004@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1302 Lines: 35 On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:29:45AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 09/10/2013 11:26 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 14:23 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >>> That's why modern systems require signed firmware updates. > >> > >> Linux doesn't. Is someone working on adding signature support to the > >> runtime firmware loader? > > > > It'd be simple to do so, but so far the model appears to be that devices > > that expect signed firmware enforce that themselves. > > > > Most devices do absolutely no verification on the firmware, and simply > trust the driver. > > So signing firmware is probably critical. How are you going to "validate" that the firmware is correct, given that it's just a "blob" living in the linux-firmware tree. If you sign it, what is that saying? I'm with Matthew here, any device that needs/wants this, has their own built-in checking, nothing the kernel should do here. Especially given that no other os does this :) thanks, greg k-h -- 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/