From: "Valdis Klētnieks" <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: 'make O=' indigestion with module signing
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 01:32:50 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <91190.1615444370@turing-police> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1771 bytes --]
So, I tried doing a 'make O=... allmodconfig', with a setup where the uid of
the build process had write permission to the O= directory, but intentionally
did *not* have write permission to the source tree (so they couldn't mess up
the tree - I got tired of having to repeatedly do 'make mrproper' because of
pilot error)
allmodconfig gave me a .config that had:
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORMAT=y
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG=y
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE=y
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_ALL=y
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_SHA1=y
# CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_SHA224 is not set
# CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_SHA256 is not set
# CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_SHA384 is not set
# CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_SHA512 is not set
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_HASH="sha1"
CONFIG_IMA_APPRAISE_REQUIRE_MODULE_SIGS=y
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY="certs/signing_key.pem"
What i *expected* was that multiple builds with different O= would each
generate themselves a unique signing key and put it in their own O= directory
and stay out of each other's way.
What actually happened:
EXTRACT_CERTS /usr/src/linux-next/"certs/signing_key.pem"
At main.c:142:
- SSL error:0200100D:system library:fopen:Permission denied: ../crypto/bio/bss_file.c:69
- SSL error:2006D002:BIO routines:BIO_new_file:system lib: ../crypto/bio/bss_file.c:78
extract-cert: /usr/src/linux-next/certs/signing_key.pem: Permission denied
make[2]: *** [/usr/src/linux-next/certs/Makefile:106: certs/signing_key.x509] Error 1
make[1]: *** [/usr/src/linux-next/Makefile:1847: certs] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/linux-next/out/arm64'
make: *** [Makefile:215: __sub-make] Error 2
It tried to put the key into the source tree rather than the build tree.
Before I try to code up a fix for this, is this intentionally designed
behavior, or have I just managed to trip over a rarely-tested corner case?
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2021-03-11 6:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-11 6:32 Valdis Klētnieks [this message]
2021-03-11 9:34 ` 'make O=' indigestion with module signing David Howells
2021-03-11 9:51 ` Valdis Klētnieks
2021-03-11 10:49 ` David Howells
2021-03-11 11:44 ` Valdis Klētnieks
2021-03-11 12:04 ` David Howells
2021-03-12 0:55 ` Valdis Klētnieks
2021-03-12 9:01 ` David Howells
2021-03-12 9:06 ` Valdis Klētnieks
2021-03-12 11:19 ` [PATCH] certs: Clean up signing_key.pem and x509.genkey on make mrproper David Howells
2021-05-09 15:11 ` 'make O=' indigestion with module signing Ingo Molnar
2021-05-09 15:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2021-05-09 16:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2021-05-10 12:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2021-03-11 13:31 ` David Howells
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=91190.1615444370@turing-police \
--to=valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.