You are not logged in.
I am trying to add a little more of security to my system. I have started with something that seems simple, enabling modules verification with kernel parameter "module.sig_enforce=1" but then the Nvidia modules, from Arch official repositories, don't load.
Is there a reason why they are not signed? Would it be reasonable to open a bug suggesting that they be signed?
Could I sign them manually or better using a pacman hook (without having to switch to nvidia-dkms to rebuild them)?
Offline
The signing key is generated per build and not retained, so it can not be used to sign modules in other packages.
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/ … ags#L10841
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentatio … igning.rst
Last edited by loqs (2023-06-11 19:18:57)
Offline
The signing key is generated per build and not retained, so it can not be used to sign modules in other packages.
The bug/feature request for that is here: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/64793
And the wiki for building a custom kernel with a module signing key: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Signed_kernel_modules
Last edited by progandy (2023-06-11 20:01:33)
| alias CUTF='LANG=en_XX.UTF-8@POSIX ' | alias ENGLISH='LANG=C.UTF-8 ' |
Offline
So it won't be that easy...
I'm curious how Fedora does it with the Nvidia driver. It forces modules verification by default, If I'm not wrong, and I don't think it shares the key with RPM Fusion.
Last edited by opotonil (2023-06-12 13:21:07)
Offline
Last I remember, Fedora has added patches to the kernel to accept UEFI or MOK certificates for module signatures. Maybe rpm fusion uses that.
| alias CUTF='LANG=en_XX.UTF-8@POSIX ' | alias ENGLISH='LANG=C.UTF-8 ' |
Offline
I think you're right:
https://rpmfusion.org/Howto/Secure%20Boot
Thanks. I was beginning to think that there was some relationship between Secure Boot and modules signing, now I understand that it is a peculiarity of Fedora.
Offline