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? Mimi
