[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 19:08:16 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
To: "Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>
CC: David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"jmorris@...ei.org" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown
On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 15:01 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 11:25:38 -0700, David Lang said:
>
> > Given that we know that people want signed binaries without blocking kexec, you
> > should have '1' just enforce module signing and '2' (or higher) implement a full
> > lockdown including kexec.
>
> > Or, eliminate the -1 permanently insecure option and make this a bitmask, if
> > someone wants to enable every possible lockdown, have them set it to "all 1's",
> > define the bits only as you need them.
>
> This strikes me as much more workable than one big sledgehammer.
Which combinations are you envisioning as being useful?
--
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists