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

Dave Jones
2007-02-15T06:22:31Z

On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:14:53PM -0800, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 February 2007 21:45, Dave Jones wrote:
> > well, the situation for external modules is no worse than usual.
> > They still work, they just aren't signed. Which from a distributor point
> > of view, is actually a nice thing, as they stick out like a sore thumb
> > in oops reports with (U) markers :)
>
> I agree, that's really what should happen. We solve this by marking modules as
> supported, partner supported, or unsupported, but in an "insecure" way, so
> partners and users could try to fake the support status of a module and/or
> remove status flags from Oopses, and cryptography wouldn't save us. We could
> try to sign Oopses which I guess you guys are doing. This whole issue hasn't
> been a serious problem in the past though, and we generally try to trust
> users not to play games on us.

For the most part it works out. I've had users file oopses where they've editted
out Tainted: P, and left in nvidia(U) for example :-)

Dave

--