Re: module signing?

[Tom Horsley]

> > If I can load them, what is the point in module signing (which I imagine has
> > something to do with security)?
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/92617/ explains this.  There is no plans to 
> enforce any restrictions on third party kernel modules being loaded.

As near as I can tell, it just means there is no point in module signing :-).

module signing?

[Rahul Sundaram]

[e-mail] wrote:
> > > If I can load them, what is the point in module signing (which I imagine has
> > > something to do with security)?
> >
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/92617/ explains this.  There is no plans to 
> > enforce any restrictions on third party kernel modules being loaded.
>
> As near as I can tell, it just means there is no point in module signing :-).

Then perhaps you might want to read the article better. Copying the 
current developer, David Howells if you need more information.

Rahul

module signing?

[Dave Jones]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 12:36:45PM -0400, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > If I can load them, what is the point in module signing (which I imagine has
> > > something to do with security)?
> >
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/92617/ explains this.  There is no plans to 
> > enforce any restrictions on third party kernel modules being loaded.
>
> As near as I can tell, it just means there is no point in module signing :-).

If I see a kernel oops with a module in the list marked with (U) I know
at a glance that it isn't the module as shipped with the kernel RPM.

This has saved head-scratching a number of times.

We could add a write-once sysctl or boot-option to enforce 'only load
signed modules' however, but it would be useless for users of 3rd
party modules.

Dave