From: "Fabian Grünbichler" <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
To: "Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>,
"Luis Chamberlain" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@samsung.com>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
Nicolas Schier <nicolas@fjasle.eu>,
Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] module: Introduce hash-based integrity checking
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 10:15:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1736759530.44f6v98g9c.astroid@yuna.none> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z3iQ8FI4J7rCzICF@bombadil.infradead.org>
On January 4, 2025 2:37 am, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 25, 2024 at 11:52:00PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/module/Kconfig b/kernel/module/Kconfig
>> index 7b329057997ad2ec310133ca84617d9bfcdb7e9f..57d317a6fa444195d0806e6bd7a2af6e338a7f01 100644
>> --- a/kernel/module/Kconfig
>> +++ b/kernel/module/Kconfig
>> @@ -344,6 +344,17 @@ config MODULE_DECOMPRESS
>>
>> If unsure, say N.
>>
>> +config MODULE_HASHES
>> + bool "Module hash validation"
>> + depends on !MODULE_SIG
>
> Why are these mutually exclusive? Can't you want module signatures *and*
> this as well? What distro which is using module signatures would switch
> to this as an alternative instead? The help menu does not clarify any of
> this at all, and neither does the patch.
FWIW, I think we (Proxmox, a Debian derivative) would consider switching
to MODULE_HASHES for the modules shipped with our kernel packages, once
MODULE_HASHES does not conflict with user/MOK-signatures on DKMS- or
manually-built modules. we do prefer reproducible builds, but
extensibility via third-party modules is an important use case for us
(and I except many other more general purpose distros).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-13 9:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-25 22:51 [PATCH RFC 0/2] module: Introduce hash-based integrity checking Thomas Weißschuh
2024-12-25 22:51 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] kbuild: add stamp file for vmlinux BTF data Thomas Weißschuh
2024-12-25 22:52 ` [PATCH RFC 2/2] module: Introduce hash-based integrity checking Thomas Weißschuh
2025-01-04 1:37 ` Luis Chamberlain
2025-01-04 6:30 ` Thomas Weißschuh
2025-01-08 19:08 ` Luis Chamberlain
2025-01-13 9:15 ` Fabian Grünbichler [this message]
2025-01-09 10:52 ` Arnout Engelen
2025-01-10 19:16 ` Luis Chamberlain
2025-01-13 15:09 ` Petr Pavlu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1736759530.44f6v98g9c.astroid@yuna.none \
--to=f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=da.gomez@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-modules@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@weissschuh.net \
--cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas@fjasle.eu \
--cc=petr.pavlu@suse.com \
--cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox