Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752015AbaBMPlg (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:41:36 -0500 Received: from mail.efficios.com ([78.47.125.74]:37375 "EHLO mail.efficios.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751600AbaBMPle (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Feb 2014 10:41:34 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:41:30 +0000 (UTC) From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Rusty Russell , David Howells , Greg Kroah-Hartman Message-ID: <2127052721.24380.1392306090965.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> In-Reply-To: <20140213102817.4bfd5eac@gandalf.local.home> References: <1392074600-21977-1-git-send-email-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <20140211072738.GA24232@gmail.com> <20140211234534.6bc34e57@gandalf.local.home> <1583293363.24361.1392304214094.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20140213102817.4bfd5eac@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [206.248.138.119] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.5_GA_5839 (ZimbraWebClient - FF27 (Linux)/8.0.5_GA_5839) Thread-Topic: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Thread-Index: A/Iy03Jehg5p4/0GKNhoLFAH6Z75mg== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steven Rostedt" > To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" > Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Ingo Molnar" , "Thomas > Gleixner" , "Rusty Russell" , "David Howells" , > "Greg Kroah-Hartman" > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 10:28:17 AM > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 15:10:14 +0000 (UTC) > Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Steven Rostedt" > > > To: "Ingo Molnar" > > > Cc: "Mathieu Desnoyers" , > > > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Ingo Molnar" > > > , "Thomas Gleixner" , "Rusty > > > Russell" , "David Howells" > > > , "Greg Kroah-Hartman" > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:45:34 PM > > > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix: module signature vs tracepoints: add new > > > TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE > > > > > > > > [...] > > > But if the kernel expects to have signed modules, and you force a > > > module to be loaded that is not signed, then you still get that > > > "forced" module taint, which is the same one as loading a module from > > > an older kernel into a newer kernel. It's a different problem, and I > > > can see having a different taint flag be more informative to kernel > > > developers in general. I would welcome that change with or without > > > letting tracepoints be set for that module. > > > > There is one important inaccuracy in your explanation above: a > > kernel supporting signed modules, but not enforcing "sig_force", > > can load unsigned modules with a simple modprobe or insmod, without > > any "--force" argument. Therefore, tainting the module as > > "TAINT_FORCED_MODULE" is misleading. > > > > Oh! You are saying that if the kernel only *supports* signed modules, > and you load a module that is not signed, it will taint the kernel? Yes, exactly, presuming that by "supporting" you mean CONFIG_MODULE_SIG=y. Loading an unsigned module then taints the kernel, and taints the module with TAINT_FORCED_MODULE even though "modprobe --force" was never used. Thanks, Mathieu > > > -- Steve > -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com -- 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/