On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 07:24:39AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > 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. I don't see why wait. > For now, other than updating the comment, would you be willing to add > your Review/Ack to this patch? But I don't particularly like the changes, I still believe trying to LSM'ify kernel module signing would be a better start to help with long term maintenace on this code. Also, do we have selftests implemented to ensure we don't regress with your changes? Luis
