Re: [PATCH v2] module: sign with sha512 instead of sha1 by default

[Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com>]

On 1/4/25 10:43, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 20.10.24 00:57, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 04:18:41PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> Switch away from using sha1 for module signing by default and use the
>>> more modern sha512 instead, which is what among others Arch, Fedora,
>>> RHEL, and Ubuntu are currently using for their kernels.
>>>
>>> Sha1 has not been considered secure against well-funded opponents since
>>> 2005[1]; since 2011 the NIST and other organizations furthermore
>>> recommended its replacement[2]. This is why OpenSSL on RHEL9, Fedora
>>> Linux 41+[3], and likely some other current and future distributions
>>> reject the creation of sha1 signatures, which leads to a build error of
>>> allmodconfig configurations:
>>>
>>>   80A20474797F0000:error:03000098:digital envelope routines:do_sigver_init:invalid digest:crypto/evp/m_sigver.c:342:
>>>   make[4]: *** [.../certs/Makefile:53: certs/signing_key.pem] Error 1
>>>   make[4]: *** Deleting file 'certs/signing_key.pem'
>>>   make[4]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>>>   make[3]: *** [.../scripts/Makefile.build:478: certs] Error 2
>>>   make[2]: *** [.../Makefile:1936: .] Error 2
>>>   make[1]: *** [.../Makefile:224: __sub-make] Error 2
>>>   make[1]: Leaving directory '...'
>>>   make: *** [Makefile:224: __sub-make] Error 2
>>>
>>> This change makes allmodconfig work again and sets a default that is
>>> more appropriate for current and future users, too.
>>>
>>> Link: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/cryptanalysis_o.html [1]
>>> Link: https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/hash-functions [2]
>>> Link: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OpenSSLDistrustsha1SigVer [3]
>>> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Tested-by: kdevops <kdevops@lists.linux.dev> [0]
>> Links: https://github.com/linux-kdevops/linux-modules-kpd/actions/runs/11420092929/job/31775404330 # [0]
>>
>> Applied and pushed!
> 
> Lo! Just wandering: what happened to that patch? That reply made me
> assume that the patch was heading towards mainline, but it seems it's
> not even in -next. Were there problems and it was dropped or something?

I can't recall that there was any problem with this patch, I assume it
felt through by some accident. I've now queued it on modules-next.

-- 
Thanks,
Petr