From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([2001:1868:205::10] helo=mail.zytor.com) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1W0OCS-0005V3-RK for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2014 04:23:33 +0000 Message-ID: <52CB8118.30601@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 20:22:48 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] kexec: A new system call, kexec_file_load, for in kernel kexec References: <20131121191907.GA26366@srcf.ucam.org> <20131122185706.GK4046@redhat.com> <87vbzju6ql.fsf@xmission.com> <20131125163920.GC23094@redhat.com> <87fvqj2vxz.fsf@xmission.com> <20131126142759.GA5473@redhat.com> <20131219125439.GA6379@lst.de> <20131220141917.GB27063@redhat.com> <87a9fvqfs4.fsf@xmission.com> <20140102203912.GB22822@redhat.com> <52C5D28F.6030008@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=twosheds.infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Josh Boyer Cc: Matthew Garrett , Kees Cook , Greg KH , kexec , LKML , Peter Jones , Torsten Duwe , "Eric W. Biederman" , Vivek Goyal On 01/06/2014 01:33 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:56 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 01/02/2014 12:39 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote: >>> >>> If secureboot is enabled, it enforces module signature verification. I >>> think similar will happen for kexec too. How would kernel know that on >>> a secureboot platform fd original verification will happen and it is >>> sufficient. >>> >>> I personally want to support bzImage as well (apart from ELF) because >>> distributions has been shipping bzImage for a long time and I don't >>> want to enforce a change there because of secureboot. It is not necessary. >>> Right now I am thinking more about storing detached bzImage signatures >>> and passing those signatures to kexec system call. >>> >> >> Since the secureboot scenario probably means people will be signing >> those kernels, and those kernels are going to be EFI images, that in >> order to have "one kernel, one signature" there will be a desire to >> support signed PE images. Yes, PE is ugly but it shouldn't be too bad. >> However, it is probably one of those things that can be dealt with one >> bit at a time. > > David Howells posted patches to support signed PE binaries early last > year. They were rejected rather quickly. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/21/196 > > That was for loading keys via PE binaries, but the parser is needed > either way. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're suggesting? > I know. I think the kexec is a better motivation, though. -hpa _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec