Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S267739AbUJOMbj@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S267739AbUJOMbj (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:31:39 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267743AbUJOMbj
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:31:39 -0400
Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.130]:20609 "EHLO
	e32.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267739AbUJOMbh
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:31:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Fw: signed kernel modules?
From: Josh Boyer <jdub@us.ibm.com>
To: root@chaos.analogic.com
Cc: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
       "Rusty Russell (IBM)" <rusty@au1.ibm.com>,
       David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
       Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com>, Joy Latten <latten@us.ibm.com>,
       lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0410150723180.8573@chaos.analogic.com>
References: <27277.1097702318@redhat.com>
	 <1097626296.4013.34.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1096411448.3230.22.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1092403984.29463.11.camel@bach> <1092369784.25194.225.camel@bach>
	 <20040812092029.GA30255@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
	 <20040811211719.GD21894@kroah.com>
	 <OF4B7132F5.8BE9D947-ON87256EEB.007192D0-86256EEB.00740B23@us.ibm.com>
	 <1092097278.20335.51.camel@bach> <20040810002741.GA7764@kroah.com>
	 <1092189167.22236.67.camel@bach> <19388.1092301990@redhat.com>
	 <30797.1092308768@redhat.com>
	 <20040812111853.GB25950@devserv.devel.redhat.com>
	 <20040812200917.GD2952@kroah.com> <26280.1092388799@redhat.com>
	 <27175.1095936746@redhat.com> <30591.1096451074@redhat.com>
	 <10345.1097507482@redhat.com>
	 <1097507755.318.332.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com>
	 <1097534090.16153.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1097570159.5788.1089.camel@baythorne.infradead.org>
	 <23446.1097777340@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0410151253360.7182@scrub.home>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.61.0410150723180.8573@chaos.analogic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1097843492.29988.6.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-7) 
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:31:32 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1255
Lines: 36

On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 07:10, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Roman Zippel wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, David Howells wrote:
> >
> >> I've uploaded an updated module signing patch with Rusty's suggested
> >> additions:
> >
> > Can someone please put this patch into some context, where it's not
> > completely pointless? As is it does not make anything more secure.
> > Why is the kernel more trustable than a kernel module?
> > If someone could show me how I can trust the running kernel, it should be
> > rather easy to extend the same measures to modules without the need for
> > this patch.
> >
> > bye, Roman
> > -
> 
> This is just the first step, which I think must be quashed
> immediately. The ultimate goal is to control what you put
> into your computer. Eventually, some central licensing
> authority will certify any modules that are allowed to
> be run in your computer. Doesn't anybody else see this?

cd linux-2.6;
patch -R -p1 < ../<modsign patch name>

josh

-
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/