From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ABAD233D92; Mon, 13 Jan 2025 09:15:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=94.136.29.106 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736759753; cv=none; b=WJyp4RbCeL9uQ+8PMwI8SaflQfcs2L39hbvTz6YzSR8NMXJlx7y35KZ7DbmykyqUvM/3vcF12a8P4OVzSxQW0tumebevLvt3P3WzFcP5D1fC3SXmKft52lBZgc7wUche3WwAdecb4XxX7QPlzCAvKix56k83nNxXRVDlbCEIVPM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736759753; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ykO6ROWoK/m4H4zwfcwB0m3Uc355ddIHyPlQ76bVw+8=; h=Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version: Message-Id:Content-Type; b=ilePaz5WXnj/QP6ztTwtWGOxxI7qlGxT4DcS62vMC4P/y19GAQCh9kgXclkcG9o/DipLxHEqe+oUKsFayjTRv1P1Qw4A1FBGo0CV3QKf3Dqvb0Wcee0JJ/jM6mlGxRviAxYRMPHcPaC2iagj2tEFP1gpNEfQtxgBFCnykke0VZQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=proxmox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=proxmox.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=94.136.29.106 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=proxmox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=proxmox.com Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2C8B44434F; Mon, 13 Jan 2025 10:15:43 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 10:15:39 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] module: Introduce hash-based integrity checking To: Thomas =?iso-8859-1?q?Wei=DFschuh?= , Luis Chamberlain Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Daniel Gomez , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, Masahiro Yamada , Nathan Chancellor , Nicolas Schier , Petr Pavlu , Sami Tolvanen References: <20241225-module-hashes-v1-0-d710ce7a3fd1@weissschuh.net> <20241225-module-hashes-v1-2-d710ce7a3fd1@weissschuh.net> In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.16.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1736759530.44f6v98g9c.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On January 4, 2025 2:37 am, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Wed, Dec 25, 2024 at 11:52:00PM +0100, Thomas Wei=C3=9Fschuh wrote: >> diff --git a/kernel/module/Kconfig b/kernel/module/Kconfig >> index 7b329057997ad2ec310133ca84617d9bfcdb7e9f..57d317a6fa444195d0806e6b= d7a2af6e338a7f01 100644 >> --- a/kernel/module/Kconfig >> +++ b/kernel/module/Kconfig >> @@ -344,6 +344,17 @@ config MODULE_DECOMPRESS >> =20 >> If unsure, say N. >> =20 >> +config MODULE_HASHES >> + bool "Module hash validation" >> + depends on !MODULE_SIG >=20 > 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).