Re: Fw: signed kernel modules?

[Thomas Weber <l_linux-kernel@mail2news.4t2.com>]

On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 10:52:38PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004, Thomas Weber wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 10:11:47PM +0200, Tonnerre wrote:
> > > What trusted computing revealed is that there is at least amongst some
> > > companies  a desire  to be  able to  dictate what's  going on  on your
> > > computer. Think Disney here.
> > 
> > 
> > > 			    Tonnerre
> > > 
> > > PS. I did a module signing patch  some years ago. I did a framework. I
> > >     did tests. I got scared of its power. All I say is, take care.
> > 
> > Think about companies deploing binary only drivers for their hardware.
> > I guess they'd be happy to have a 'feature' like this in the kernel.
> > We might end up with hardware companies deploying binary only signed 
> > modules for the major distributions (with which they have deals).
> > We might end up with weird patches from those companies to get their key
> > into the kernel source in order to be able to load their signed module.
> > 
> > Once a module itself requires this feature in the kernel you don't have
> > the choice of saying 'No' to this option of compile time and you can't
> > simply revert this patch anymore as others have suggested.
> > 
> > This patch would give power to those who make binary distributions and
> > (binary only) modules not to the admin who runs the system.
> > Only allowing modules to be loaded from a secured area (read only
> > device, signed 'container' of modules...) and leaving it to the
> > admin which modules he puts into this area would address all the reasons
> > for this patch without taking power away from the owner of the system.
> 
> Solution: the module loader refuses to load signed modules that are not GPLed?
> I.e. a combination of MODULE_LICENSE() and signed modules.
> 
> Opens up interesting legal actions if the signature owner signs modules that
> claim to be GPL, but aren't. Digital signatures are starting to become valid
> signatures in many countries...

What if distributions ship with this check removed (maybe distributions that 
have deals with such companies)? 
What if a binary module comes with a kernel source patch that removes this 
check?
Who's gonna pay the lawyers?

  Tom