From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HK_RANDOM_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83502C433DF for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 03:20:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5662A206F6 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 03:20:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=vfemail.net header.i=@vfemail.net header.b="WkKjeeRR" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730244AbgHFDUv (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2020 23:20:51 -0400 Received: from nl101-3.vfemail.net ([149.210.219.33]:30008 "EHLO nl101-3.vfemail.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730228AbgHFDUs (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Aug 2020 23:20:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=vfemail.net; h=date:from :to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=2018; bh=Ue08wca4aM0I SmyWal/liLfS8epsmUBIz5UxuAqlMdw=; b=WkKjeeRRzXXMuvvZ7LZy7tuRkHmJ xnuXeUrmIDPlpQT8vqygaTkAIy85owyfpWtBJT7ufwuZ+UOzpNujxMT5hOy3dIhJ dqDp/UBPWqvlCQwSUixUl2k5dtDXXnABZKIAaDUKhVQzeIN2TGSs3PYDisxdH4lL imqJEI7J6fQ2/Ns= Received: (qmail 56125 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2020 03:20:47 -0000 Received: by simscan 1.4.0 ppid: 56117, pid: 56122, t: 0.2011s scanners:none Received: from unknown (HELO d3d3MTkyLnZmZW1haWwubmV0) (aGdudGt3aXNAdmZlbWFpbC5uZXQ=@MTkyLjE2OC4xLjE5Mg==) by nl101.vfemail.net with ESMTPA; 6 Aug 2020 03:20:47 -0000 Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 23:20:38 -0400 From: David Niklas To: Randy Dunlap Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , LKML Subject: Re: Is anyone else getting a bad signature from kernel.org's 5.8 sources+Greg's sign? Message-ID: <20200805232038.7a1767cc@Phenom-II-x6.niklas.com> In-Reply-To: <5a943a1f-c5ef-937f-f67e-1c59c04d63fb@infradead.org> References: <20200805205924.1f646d45@Phenom-II-x6.niklas.com> <5a943a1f-c5ef-937f-f67e-1c59c04d63fb@infradead.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 18:36:08 -0700 Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 8/5/20 5:59 PM, David Niklas wrote: > > Hello, > > I downloaded the kernel sources from kernel.org using curl, then > > opera, and finally lynx (to rule out an html parsing bug). I did the > > same with the sign and I keep getting: > > > > % gpg2 --verify linux-5.8.tar.sign linux-5.8.tar.xz > > gpg: Signature made Mon Aug 3 00:19:13 2020 EDT > > gpg: using RSA key > > 647F28654894E3BD457199BE38DBBDC86092693E gpg: BAD signature from > > "Greg Kroah-Hartman " [unknown] > > > > I did refresh all the keys just in case. > > I believe this is important so I'm addressing this to the signer and > > only CC'ing the list. > > > > If I'm made some simple mistake, feel free to send SIG666 to my > > terminal. I did re-read the man page just in case. > > It works successfully for me. > > > from https://www.kernel.org/category/signatures.html:: > > > If you get "BAD signature" > > If at any time you see "BAD signature" output from "gpg2 --verify", > please first check the following first: > > Make sure that you are verifying the signature against the .tar > version of the archive, not the compressed (.tar.xz) version. Make sure > the the downloaded file is correct and not truncated or otherwise > corrupted. > > If you repeatedly get the same "BAD signature" output, please email > helpdesk@kernel.org, so we can investigate the problem. > > > Many thanks. I've never seen a signature done that way before, but I understand why you would do it that way. David