Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
Date:   Fri, 17 Nov 2023 10:33:48 -0800
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To:     Alessandro Carminati <alessandro.carminati@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Modules: Introduce boot-time module signature
 flexibility
Message-ID: <ZVeyDDLe9B+Aij2O@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20230914112739.112729-1-alessandro.carminati@gmail.com>
 <20230914112739.112729-2-alessandro.carminati@gmail.com>
 <ZVZS4hw5dGB4aPz3@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <CAPp5cGTcRGp3z=xbA1svxLYz1LC74_AQrTPSXNmACPRYrpporg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPp5cGTcRGp3z=xbA1svxLYz1LC74_AQrTPSXNmACPRYrpporg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 02:56:53PM +0100, Alessandro Carminati wrote:
> Il giorno gio 16 nov 2023 alle ore 18:35 Luis Chamberlain
> <mcgrof@kernel.org> ha scritto:
> >
> > I see the code which skips module signature verification and the knobs
> > but I don't see the code which complete the promise to do the actual
> > signature verification post initrd / initramfs state. What gives?
> 
> My initial intention wasn't centered around providing an automated solution.

It is not even an automated solution, it's *any* solution. So to be
clear your patch simply disables module verification, it has no
solution.

> Instead, I envisioned a design where users could manually restore module
> verification during a specific point in their init scripts.
> 
> It might be plausible to restore module verification when the rootfs is
> remounted. However, this seems limiting rather than advantageous.

The patch as-is describes a lofty world and does nothing other than
disables module verification. If a patch disables module verification
it should just do that and describe that. Nothing else. The subject
of the patch tends to suggest some flexibility it provided but does
nothing of being flexible, it outright disables module signature
verification. The commit log and the patch subject description are
describing something completely different than what the code actually
does, and it gives me to the concern, to the point that if you didn't
have a few commit logs in the kernel I would have thought your intent
was test kernel developers with some AI type of code that does something
stupid and very carefully crafted commit log.

Nacked-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>

  Luis