Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760526Ab2FDMtO (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:49:14 -0400 Received: from e37.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.158]:34780 "EHLO e37.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753560Ab2FDMtM (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:49:12 -0400 Message-ID: <1338814071.4044.19.camel@falcor> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/23] Crypto keys and module signing From: Mimi Zohar To: Rusty Russell Cc: David Howells , kyle@mcmartin.ca, dmitry.kasatkin@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@linux-nfs.org Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:47:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87ipf73lsi.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <20120522230218.24007.3556.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <26029.1337960539@redhat.com> <87ipf73lsi.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 (3.2.3-3.fc16) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12060412-7408-0000-0000-0000058E8497 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1633 Lines: 42 On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 11:01 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:42:19 +0100, David Howells wrote: > > > > Hi Rusty, > > > > If you prefer to have userspace extract the module signature and pass it in > > uargs, here's a tree that will do that: > > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-modsign.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/modsign-uarg > > OK, there's merit in this approach: it certainly moves the argument > about how to encode the signature out of my backyard :) > > Should we just bite the bullet and create a new syscall: > > SYSCALL_DEFINE5(init_module2, void __user *, umod, > unsigned long, len, const char __user *, uargs, > unsigned int, siglen, const char __user *, sig) > > But I'm easily swayed if you prefer the current approach. > > Thanks, > Rusty. If you're really considering creating a new syscall, then perhaps this discussion should include passing the file descriptor instead of a buffer and signature. As I said https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/25/261, I don't know the historical reasons for passing a buffer instead of the file descriptor itself. If the file descriptor was passed, it would allow IMA-appraisal, which is in the process of being upstreamed, to verify and enforce file data and metadata integrity like on the other hooks open, execve, and mmap. thanks, Mimi -- 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/