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

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

> > well, the situation for external modules is no worse than usual.
> > They still work, they just aren't signed. Which from a distributor point
> > of view, is actually a nice thing, as they stick out like a sore thumb
> > in oops reports with (U) markers :)
> 
> I agree, that's really what should happen. We solve this by marking modules as 
> supported, partner supported, or unsupported, but in an "insecure" way, so 
> partners and users could try to fake the support status of a module and/or 
> remove status flags from Oopses, and cryptography wouldn't save us. We could 
> try to sign Oopses which I guess you guys are doing. This whole issue hasn't 

I do not think any ammount of crypto can determine that I loaded
unsupported module, then edited oops. (TPM hw module may be able to do that, not
sure).

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html