From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752467Ab3AVG1b (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2013 01:27:31 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:35375 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750889Ab3AVG1a (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2013 01:27:30 -0500 From: Rusty Russell To: Vivek Goyal , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: ebiederm@xmission.com, zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pjones@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, dhowells@redhat.com, jwboyer@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com, "Mimi Zohar" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ELF executable signing and verification In-Reply-To: <1358285695-26173-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> References: <1358285695-26173-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.14 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:52:19 +1030 Message-ID: <87ip6phmo4.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Vivek Goyal writes: > Hi, > > This is a very crude RFC for ELF executable signing and verification. This > has been done along the lines of module signature verification. Yes, but I'm the first to admit that's the wrong lines. The reasons we didn't choose that for module signatures: 1) I was unaware of it, 2) We didn't have a file descriptor in the module syscall, and 3) It needs attributes, and we don't understand xattrs in cpio (though bsdcpio does). #1 and #2 are no longer true; #3 is a simple matter of coding. Since signing binaries is the New Hotness, I'd prefer not to keep reiterating this discussion every month. Let's beef up IMA instead... Thanks, Rusty.