Re: [PATCH] fsverity: mark builtin signatures as deprecated

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 at 20:55, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 09:37:29PM +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> >
> > The second question is easy: because the kernel is the right place for
> > our use case to do this verification and enforcement, exactly like dm-
> > verity does.
>
> Well, dm-verity's in-kernel signature verification support is a fairly new
> feature.  Most users of dm-verity don't use it, and will not be using it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "most users" - systemd has support for
dm-verity signatures all over the place, libcryptsetup/veritysetup
supports them, and even libmount has native first-class mount options
for them.

> > Userspace is largely untrusted, or much lower trust anyway.
>
> Yes, which means the kernel is highly trusted.  Which is why parsing complex
> binary formats, X.509 and PKCS#7, in C code in the kernel is not a great idea...

Maybe, but it's there and it's used for multiple purposes and
userspace relies on it. If you want to add a new alternative and
optional formats I don't think it would be a problem, I certainly
wouldn't mind.

Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Kernel Hardening]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux