On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:20:00PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Thu, 2013-01-17 at 12:36 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:32:45AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > [..] > > > > > At this point, why would you want yet another method for signing > > > > > files? > > > > > > > > Are you saying that append signature instead of putting them in a > > > > section > > > > or are you saying that just use IMA. > > > > > > > > - For the first, I am fine with appending too if that works better. So > > > > what's wrong with current implementation. Just because we append the > > > > signatures in case of modules, we should follow the same thing for > > > > executables too? > > > > > > No, I was saying that if this patch set were to be upstreamed, then the > > > signature verification, at least for ELF modules and ELF executables, > > > should be the same. The patch would then be a lot smaller. > > > > I don't think that patch is lot smaller. Initially I had written code > > where signatures were appended. Parsing the signature is little different > > from module. In case of modules, whole file is already in memory and > > in case of executables, we are reading selected portions of file in > > buffer. > > Have you looked at the original kernel module signature verification > code as posted by David? It did something similar, but was not > upstreamed.
I have. I think keeping code in a section makes stripping of section easy. Anyway, these sections are not loaded in memory at file exec time so it should be fine. So appending signature is easy and I can change the implementation to do it like modules. But please give a more stronger reason that why it should be appened to executable then put in a section. Thanks Vivek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
