[PATCH] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules
zohar at linux.ibm.com
Tue Feb 5 12:24:39 UTC 2019
On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 14:30 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 05:05:10PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 12:38 -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > I don't see a need for an additional LSM just for verifying kernel
> > module signatures.
> But it is one, module signing was just spawned pre the boom of LSMs.
> I do believe that treating the code as such would help with its reading
> and long term maintenance.
> Anyway, I had to try to convince you.
Perhaps, after IMA supports appended signatures (for kernel modules),
I could see making the existing kernel module appended signature
verification an LSM.
For now, other than updating the comment, would you be willing to add
your Review/Ack to this patch?
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive