Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964863AbbEUV7u (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2015 17:59:50 -0400 Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com ([209.85.213.181]:37093 "EHLO mail-ig0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932217AbbEUV7t (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2015 17:59:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20150515123513.16723.96340.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <555BD715.40202@kernel.org> <31772.1432128969@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20150520162059.GC10473@localhost> <20150521213829.GH23057@wotan.suse.de> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 14:59:27 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: FICftHKVnPcCvqKcCg5RnBD33Y0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] MODSIGN: Use PKCS#7 for module signatures [ver #4] To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: David Howells , Andy Lutomirski , Rusty Russell , Michal Marek , Matthew Garrett , keyrings@linux-nfs.org, Dmitry Kasatkin , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Seth Forshee , LSM List , David Woodhouse Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1505 Lines: 29 On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > One option would be to add another type of verifiable thing. We can > verify modules, and we should add firmware to the types of things that > can be signed. We could add signing keys, too. IOW, you could ask > the kernel to load a signing key with certain rights, and, if they key > is validly signed by some other key that has the same rights and has a > bit set saying that it can delegate those rights, then the kernel will > add that signing key to the keyring. > > If the general infrastructure were there, this would be very little > additional code. I really like this idea, but I've heard of many great ideas before followed by nothing but vaporware. So is it a direct requirement to implicate blocking a change for current module signature checking strategy to a new one given the concerns you raise, or can we enable those who wish to want additional better solutions as the one you propose to opt-in to develop those solutions? I like the idea of the later given that it seems those using the current module signing infrastructure would prefer the change and enabling what you say does not seem to be a not possible based on allowing that to be advanced. Luis -- 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/