From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755593AbbFONRk (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:17:40 -0400 Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:35911 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754089AbbFONRd (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:17:33 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:17:28 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Josh Boyer Cc: Eric Biederman , David Howells , kexec , "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: Re: kexec_load(2) bypasses signature verification Message-ID: <20150615131728.GK15793@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Josh Boyer , Eric Biederman , David Howells , kexec , "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" References: <20150615035051.GA2634@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 08:14:19AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > Yes, which is why most of the distro vendors carry an out-of-tree > patch that disables the old kexec in an SB setup. It would be nice if > we could merge said patches. However, they depend on Matthew's > secure_modules/trusted_kernel/ patchset > which has gotten little movement since we came up with a tentative > agreement at LPC 2013. Signed modules is in, though, right? And the fact that we have CONFIG_SIGNED_PE_FILE_VERIFICATION means we're doing unatural file signatures w/o using ELF, which I thought was the basis of Linus's accusation that Red Hat was performing intimate/physical acts with Microsoft. :-) I would have thought those were the nasty bits to get in; out of curiosity, what's still missing? Regards, - Ted From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from imap.thunk.org ([2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:fe96:be03]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Z4UGu-00017a-Hg for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:17:53 +0000 Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:17:28 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: kexec_load(2) bypasses signature verification Message-ID: <20150615131728.GK15793@thunk.org> References: <20150615035051.GA2634@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: Josh Boyer Cc: David Howells , kexec , Eric Biederman , "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 08:14:19AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > Yes, which is why most of the distro vendors carry an out-of-tree > patch that disables the old kexec in an SB setup. It would be nice if > we could merge said patches. However, they depend on Matthew's > secure_modules/trusted_kernel/ patchset > which has gotten little movement since we came up with a tentative > agreement at LPC 2013. Signed modules is in, though, right? And the fact that we have CONFIG_SIGNED_PE_FILE_VERIFICATION means we're doing unatural file signatures w/o using ELF, which I thought was the basis of Linus's accusation that Red Hat was performing intimate/physical acts with Microsoft. :-) I would have thought those were the nasty bits to get in; out of curiosity, what's still missing? Regards, - Ted _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec