Re: [PATCH 00/23] Crypto keys and module signing

[David Howells]

Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > That then adds 5 bytes to the magic string.  Is that really so bad?
> 
> Yes, because it's unnecessary.

I'm sorry Rusty, but this argument is disingenuous.

Yes, a length field in the file is unnecessary - BUT SO TOO is scanning!  By
this argument, your idea is really so bad too.  It's all about the trade off
one chooses to make.  I do not accept your chosen trade off[*] as being the
best one.

David

[*] And, yes, it *is* a trade off: you are trading CPU time and permanently
    resident kernel code space in order to save a tiny amount of disk
    space[**].

[**] Assuming 512 byte blocks and a 5 byte size field, probably fewer than 1%
     of modules will expand sufficiently to consume an extra block.  Further,
     making it a 2-byte binary field would make it even less intrusive, both
     in the file and in the module verifier.
--
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/