Re: [PATCH 1/3] module: Invalidate signatures on force-loaded modules

Path	csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 1/3] module: Invalidate signatures on force-loaded modules
Date	Thu, 28 Apr 2016 02:30:02 +0200
Message-ID	<rsI0a-289-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<rraMV-7Jc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rraMW-7Jc-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <rshW1-5I2-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rsip3-6eQ-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To	Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
User-Agent	Notmuch/0.21 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8BIT
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
List-ID	<linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	22
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date	Thu, 28 Apr 2016 09:24:40 +0930
X-Original-Message-ID	<87pota4ngf.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
X-Original-References	<20160423184421.GL3348@decadent.org.uk> <20160423184501.GM3348@decadent.org.uk> <8760v464gr.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <1461704447.5852.17.camel@decadent.org.uk>
X-Original-Sender	linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Xref	csiph.com linux.kernel:1389707

Show key headers only | View raw

Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> writes:
> On Tue, 2016-04-26 at 20:07 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> writes:
>> > -	if (info->len > markerlen &&
>> > +	/*
>> > +	 * Require flags == 0, as a module with version information
>> > +	 * removed is no longer the module that was signed
>> > +	 */
>> > +	if (flags == 0 &&
>> This check is a bit lazy.  We could have other flags in future,
>> so this should really be !(flags &
>> (MODULE_INIT_IGNORE_MODVERSIONS|MODULE_INIT_IGNORE_VERMAGIC) right?
>
> Yes we could, but I'd prefer this to fail-safe in case no-one thinks
> about whether it should be updated then.

Yeah, line ball.  We could screw up either way, and I can't think of
an reasonable new flag off the top of my head to give a concrete
example.

I've applied all three, thanks!
Rusty.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH 0/3] Module signing and version info Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2016-04-23 20:50 +0200
  [PATCH 3/3] module: Disable MODULE_FORCE_LOAD when MODULE_SIG_FORCE  is enabled Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2016-04-23 20:50 +0200
  [PATCH 2/3] Documentation/module-signing.txt: Note need for version  info if reusing a key Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2016-04-23 20:50 +0200
  [PATCH 1/3] module: Invalidate signatures on force-loaded modules Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2016-04-23 20:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 1/3] module: Invalidate signatures on force-loaded modules Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> - 2016-04-26 22:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 1/3] module: Invalidate signatures on force-loaded  modules Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2016-04-26 23:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 1/3] module: Invalidate signatures on force-loaded modules Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> - 2016-04-28 02:30 +0200

csiph-web