Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1722885
| From | Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: Allow automatic kernel taint on unsigned module load to be disabled |
| Date | 2017-08-30 00:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ujWRQ-8mX-31@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <uaPcS-20M-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <ud2yZ-2u3-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <ueqSC-6B0-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <ujSXU-5GQ-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <ujVj4-7iA-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw
On Tue, 2017-08-29 at 13:22 -0700, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org> wrote: > > I understand what the patch is doing, what I don't yet understand is > > _why_ you would want to remove the unsigned module taint when > > CONFIG_MODULE_SIG is enabled. Which distributions are asking for this > > exactly, and for what use cases? I find it a bit contradictory to have > > CONFIG_MODULE_SIG enabled and at the same time expect the kernel to > > behave as if the option wasn't enabled. > > Debian disable CONFIG_MODULE_SIG because of this additional taint > (I've Cc:ed Ben who made this change). The current state of affairs is that Debian doesn't have the mechanism in place to sign modules with a trusted key. If we were to allow third parties to add signatures in some way (I think that's what Matthew's interested in doing) we would have to enabled CONFIG_MODULE_SIG, but that would cause modules to be tainted by default. > > I would really prefer not to add extra code to remove what is cosmetic > > and still has informational/debug value. If the unsigned module taint > > is for whatever reason that bothersome, why can't distro(s) carry a > > 2-line patch removing the message and taint for those particular > > setups where signatures are considered "irrelevant" even with > > CONFIG_MODULE_SIG=y? > > If it's functionality that distributions want to patch out, it makes > sense to provide them with a config option rather than forcing them to > maintain a patch separately. We could use this in Debian. It would likely be a temporary stage until we do our own centralised module signing (or someone implements a Merkle tree for in-tree modules). Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Allow automatic kernel taint on unsigned module load to be disabled Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org> - 2017-08-29 20:00 +0200
Re: Allow automatic kernel taint on unsigned module load to be disabled Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com> - 2017-08-29 22:30 +0200
Re: Allow automatic kernel taint on unsigned module load to be disabled Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2017-08-30 00:10 +0200
csiph-web