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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).