[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 20:17:41 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
To: David Lang <david@...g.hm>
CC: "Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
"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 13:15 -0700, David Lang wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 12:59 -0700, David Lang wrote:
> >
> >> At least you should be able to unify the implementation, even if you don't unify
> >> the user visible knob
> >
> > Well sure, I could take this integer and merge another integer into it,
> > but now you have the same value being modified by two different
> > user-visible interfaces which aren't guaranteed to have the same
> > semantics.
>
> It's not that you merge integers, it's that the knob that currently sets the
> signed module only loading but not anything else would have it's implementation
> changed so that instead of doing whatever it currently does, it would instead
> make an internal call to set the "require signed modules" bit, and that one
> place would implement the lockdown.
Thanks.
--
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists