From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753032AbcHABpB (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:45:01 -0400
Received: from mail-oi0-f66.google.com ([209.85.218.66]:35892 "EHLO
	mail-oi0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751283AbcHABov (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:44:51 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87y44hxpwi.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
References: <87y44hxpwi.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 21:44:50 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: eWA-AgDJ83lND8z5H6kWX9R10LY
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxZragtLY5Th4_P4k8FcCo+3eUv7YOMGqbNohr9Rcd0oQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PULL] modules-next
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Libor Pechacek <lpechacek@suse.com>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

So this feels wrong to me, can you guys please explain:

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
> Ben Hutchings (3):
>       module: Invalidate signatures on force-loaded modules
>       module: Disable MODULE_FORCE_LOAD when MODULE_SIG_FORCE is enabled

forcing a load and SIG_FORCE are entirely independent issues, afaik. I
think requiring signed modules is just a good idea. But that doesn't
necessarily mean that you don't have a signed module that is signed
with a key you trust, but you still want to force-load it for the
wrong kernel version (ie maybe you have a binary-only module from your
IT department (and your IT department is evil,but at least they sign
it to show that the module is trust-worthy as coming from them, even
if they have some dubious behavior), but you did some kernel updates
that still allow the module to work but the version doesn't match any
more).

Am I missing something? What's the connection between
MODULE_FORCE_LOAD and MODULE_SIG_FORCE? Because it smells like they
are independent and that the above changes are very very dubious.

I didn't actually pull the tree, I just reacted to the pull request itself.

             Linus