On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 23:14 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:41:02AM +0300, Petko Manolov wrote: > > > I too don't understand this need to sign something that you don't really know > > > what it is from some other company, just to send it to a separate device that > > > is going to do whatever it wants with it if it is signed or not. > > > > This is not the point. What you need to know is _where_ the firmware came from, > > not _what_ it does once it reach your system. If you don't care about such > > things, just ignore the signature. :) > > Ok, but how do we know "where"? Who is going to start signing and > attesting to the validity of all of the firmware images in the > linux-firmware tree suddenly? Why is it the kernel's job to attest this > "where"? Shouldn't your distro/manufacturer be doing that as part of > their "put this file on this disk" responsibilities (i.e. the package > manager?) Signatures don't provide any guarantees as to code quality or correctness. They do provide file integrity and provenance. In addition to the license and a Signed-off-by line, having the firmware provider include a signature of the firmware would be nice. > What is verifying a firmware image signature in the kernel attesting > that isn't already known in userspace? Appraising and enforcing firmware integrity before use. Mimi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
