From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:36:06 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] Open bug analysis In-Reply-To: <20140213195254.0b17b5bf@skate> References: <20140213195254.0b17b5bf@skate> Message-ID: <53024886.1030902@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 13/02/14 19:52, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >> Support for kernel signed modules >> > https://bugs.busybox.net/show_bug.cgi?id=6764 >> > This bug report has a patch attached, and both Yann and me asked the >> > submitter to send it to the list, but without response. It's still >> > pretty recent though, so hopefully the submitter comes back to us. If >> > not, someone could adopt it and resend to the list. > Yes, I remember looking at this patch, and looking a bit inside the > kernel for some details about why signed modules cannot be stripped. If > I remember correctly, it is indeed true that they cannot be stripped. > It's a bit annoying if they are built with debugging symbols... > This is something that can only be solved on the kernel side, I think - modules have to be stripped before signing. Up to now, the kernel didn't need support for that because stripping was done by the packagers. But now that module signing has been added, the kernel will have to do the stripping. So I'd suggest to point the bug reporter to the maintainers of MODULES_SIG. Regards, Arnout -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F