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

Roman Zippel
2007-02-15T21:02:35Z

Hi,

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, David Lang wrote:

> this issue, and these holes keep comeing up in discussions, why can't these
> holes be closed? I seem to remember seeing patches that would remove /dev/kmem
> being sent to the list, but they weren't accepted into the kernel (and I seem
> to remember people being against the concept of removeing them, not against
> techincal details of the patches. but this was many years ago)

1. It depends on the ratio of added code and its usefulness. I must assume
the first patch didn't even make it to the kernel due to its size, so I
think it's not unreasonable to explore the alternatives.
2. There are many ways to load an unauthorized module, thus you have to
prevent any modification of the kernel not just in memory but also on
disk.

bye, Roman