From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/21] MODSIGN: Apply signature checking to modules on module load [ver #3] Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:14:31 +0000 Message-ID: <24260.1323908071@redhat.com> References: <87obvdtdwz.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87ty56taup.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87obvfogc6.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <8739csq5ac.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87boriouwa.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <20111202184229.21874.25782.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20111202184651.21874.57769.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <2657.1323456206@redhat.com> <30007.1323526114@redhat.com> <26644.1323652900@redhat.com> <21605.1323706287@redhat.com> Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, keyrings@linux-nfs.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dmitry.kasatkin@intel.com, zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com, alan.cox@intel.com, Jon Masters To: Rusty Russell Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51379 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753150Ab1LOAOx (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:14:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87obvdtdwz.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Rusty Russell wrote: > > > We can have false positives, but at worst that make us report EINVAL > > > (bad signature) instead of ENOENT (no signature). > > > > EKEYREJECTED please; that way it's the same as RHEL does now. > > OK, sure (who knew that was there?). Second paragraph in the description of patch #21: These patches have been in use by RHEL and Fedora kernels for years, and so have been thoroughly tested. Further down the description: Any module for which the kernel has a key, but which proves to have a signature mismatch will not be permitted to load (returning EKEYREJECTED). David