Re: [PATCH RFC v2 3/4] firmware: Add support for signature checks

[Takashi Iwai]

At Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:56:11 +0800,
joeyli wrote:
> 
> æ åï2012-11-08 æ 18:35 +0100ïTakashi Iwai æåï
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_FIRMWARE_SIG
> > +static int verify_sig_file(struct firmware_buf *buf, const char
> > *path)
> > +{
> > +       const unsigned long markerlen = sizeof(FIRMWARE_SIG_STRING) -
> > 1;
> > +       struct file *file;
> > +       void *sig_data;
> > +       size_t sig_size;
> > +       int ret;
> > +
> > +       file = filp_open(path, O_RDONLY, 0);
> > +       if (IS_ERR(file))
> > +               return -ENOKEY;
> 
> I think there should return '-ENOENT', otherwise the firmware will show
> 'Invalid firmware signature' even didn't find the sig file.

Actually this is the intentional behavior.
In the secure boot mode, unsigned firmware should be rejected.

In the normal boot mode, the -ENOKEY error is ignored.  (Whether we
should taint the kernel with such an unsigned firmware is a bit
different question, though.)


thanks,

Takashi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/