Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] module: Introduce hash-based integrity checking

[Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com>]

On 1/10/25 20:16, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 11:52:27AM +0100, Arnout Engelen wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:37:52 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>>> What distro which is using module signatures would switch
>>> to this as an alternative instead?
>>
>> In NixOS, we disable MODULE_SIG by default (because we value
>> reproducibility over having module signatures). Enabling
>> MODULE_HASHES on systems that do not need to load out-of-tree
>> modules would be a good step forward.
>>
> 
> Mentioning this in the cover letter will also be good. So two
> distros seemt to want this.

I'm aware that folks from the reproducible build community have been
interested in this functionality [1, 2].

Some people at SUSE have been eyeing this as well. I've let them know
about this series. It would help with the mentioned build
reproducibility and from what I understood, it should also avoid in SUSE
case some bottlenecks with HSM needing to sign all modules.

I agree that we should make sure that whatever ends up added is
something that some distributions actually check it works for them and
they intend to use it.

From the SUSE side, I can also support that the feature should work
seamlessly with the current MODULE_SIG.

[1] https://lists.reproducible-builds.org/pipermail/rb-general/2024-September/003530.html
[2] https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/linux/-/merge_requests/1

-- 
Thanks,
Petr