Re: [PATCH 1/7] multiboot2: Add load type header and support for the PE binary type

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 14.03.2024 15:24, Ross Lagerwall wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:37 PM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 14.03.2024 10:30, Ross Lagerwall wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 7:24 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 13.03.2024 16:07, Ross Lagerwall wrote:
>>>>> In addition to the existing address and ELF load types, specify a new
>>>>> optional PE binary load type. This new type is a useful addition since
>>>>> PE binaries can be signed and verified (i.e. used with Secure Boot).
>>>>
>>>> And the consideration to have ELF signable (by whatever extension to
>>>> the ELF spec) went nowhere?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if you're referring to some ongoing work to create signable
>>> ELFs that I'm not aware of.
>>
>> Something must have been invented already to make Linux modules signable.
> 
> Linux module signatures operate outside of the ELF container. In fact,
> AFAIK the actual signed content could be anything. The file format is:
> 
> * Content (i.e. ELF binary)
> * Signature of content in PKCS7 format
> * Signature info, including signature length
> * Magic marker: "~Module signature appended~\n"
> 
> This kind of arrangement does indeed work but it is fragile. Since the
> signature is on the entire contents and tools that understand ELF don't
> parse the signature, any transformation of the binary (e.g. to
> strip out debuginfo) will cause the signature to be lost / invalidated.

This looks extremely poor to me, so ...

> Nevertheless, this could still be an option for Xen if this is
> deemed to be a preferred solution by others. It would be good to hear
> some opinions on this.

... I'd rather not see this used for Xen.

Jan