Re: [PATCH 0/6] MODSIGN: Kernel module signing

David Howells
2007-02-14T19:41:16Z

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > (1) A cut-down MPI library derived from GPG with error handling added.
>
> Do we really need to add this?

I presume you mean the MPI library specifically? If so, then yes. It's
necessary to do DSA signature verification (or RSA for that matter).

> Wouldn't it be much nicer to just teach people to use one of the existing
> signature things that we need for _other_ cases anyway, and already have
> merged?

Existing signature things? I know not of such beasts, nor can I see them
offhand.

> (Of course, it's possible that none of the current crypto supports any
> signature checking at all - I didn't actually look. In which case my
> argument is pointless).

Hashing, yes; encryption, yes; signature checking: no from what I can see.

It's possible that I can share code with eCryptFS, though at first sight that
doesn't seem to overlap with what I want to do.

David