From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] MODSIGN: Kernel module signing Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:12:43 -0500 Message-ID: <200702152212.l1FMCh0Z018611@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <20070214190938.6438.15091.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <20070214194112.5bec3110.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070215041345.GA15654@redhat.com> <200702152055.l1FKtfTY012824@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20070215213240.GG13958@stusta.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1171577563_27755P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Dave Jones , Andrew Morton , David Howells , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, herbert.xu@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arjan@infradead.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: Adrian Bunk Return-path: In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:32:40 +0100." <20070215213240.GG13958@stusta.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_1171577563_27755P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:32:40 +0100, Adrian Bunk said: > There are different opinions whether the "complete source code" of the > GPLv2 includes in such cases public keys, making it questionable whether > your example will survive at court in all jurisdictions. It's no less shaky than the whole EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL-as-enforcement crock. :) > E.g. remember that gpl-violations.org has already successfully enforced > the publication of public keys for "firmware only loads signed kernels" > cases by threatening companies to otherwise take legal actions in > Germany. A court order for the publication of *public* keys? :) I think you meant "private keys" in both paragraphs above. And it's probably a non-issue the way Red Hat implemented it - they included a document on "How to generate your own public/private key pair", which invokes commands that create a bitstring that you can then use to sign the entire applicable part of the kernel tree. The fact that it's not the *same* bitstring as they used is (IMHO) legally about as relevant as the fact that they compiled the tree with one release of GCC, included instructions on how to compile it, and I don't get a bitwise identical binary if I compile it with a different GCC release. Yes, you're still screwed if you only build *part* of the kernel tree and expect it to work - modules you sign won't load into their kernel, and vice versa. But that's the same problem as the old 2.4 "You didn't do a make clean between rebuilds and you bugged out because different parts of the tree were built with different GCC releases". As distributed, you *can* build a working kernel from the pieces and instructions provided. --==_Exmh_1171577563_27755P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFF1NrbcC3lWbTT17ARArCoAJ9ICZV/weZlac6F/Ys3WarRaw0k/ACfY/py MUizyOd65J1buuquNJagu+I= =I4MO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1171577563_27755P--