From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752468Ab3ATRUJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jan 2013 12:20:09 -0500 Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:51292 "EHLO e9.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752392Ab3ATRUI (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Jan 2013 12:20:08 -0500 Message-ID: <1358702400.2406.103.camel@falcor1.watson.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] binfmt_elf: Verify signature of signed elf binary From: Mimi Zohar To: Vivek Goyal Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, pjones@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, dhowells@redhat.com, jwboyer@redhat.com Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 12:20:00 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20130117173605.GB2237@redhat.com> References: <1358285695-26173-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <1358285695-26173-3-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <1358437021.2689.52.camel@falcor1> <20130117155154.GC12165@redhat.com> <1358440365.2689.72.camel@falcor1> <20130117173605.GB2237@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 (3.2.3-3.fc16) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13012017-7182-0000-0000-000004928710 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 12:36 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:32:45AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > [..] > > > > At this point, why would you want yet another method for signing files? > > > > > > Are you saying that append signature instead of putting them in a section > > > or are you saying that just use IMA. > > > > > > - For the first, I am fine with appending too if that works better. So > > > what's wrong with current implementation. Just because we append the > > > signatures in case of modules, we should follow the same thing for > > > executables too? > > > > No, I was saying that if this patch set were to be upstreamed, then the > > signature verification, at least for ELF modules and ELF executables, > > should be the same. The patch would then be a lot smaller. > > I don't think that patch is lot smaller. Initially I had written code > where signatures were appended. Parsing the signature is little different > from module. In case of modules, whole file is already in memory and > in case of executables, we are reading selected portions of file in > buffer. Have you looked at the original kernel module signature verification code as posted by David? It did something similar, but was not upstreamed. thanks, Mimi