linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/11] kexec: Disable in a secure boot environment

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87txvdzgur.fsf@xmission.com>
Date:	Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:13:32 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] kexec: Disable in a secure boot environment


Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com> writes:

> kexec could be used as a vector for a malicious user to use a signed kernel
> to circumvent the secure boot trust model. In the long run we'll want to
> support signed kexec payloads, but for the moment we should just disable
> loading entirely in that situation.

Nacked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>

This makes no sense.  The naming CAP_SECURE_FIRMWARE is attrocious,
you aren't implementing or enforcing secure firmware.

You don't give any justification for this other than to support some
silly EFI feature.  Why would anyone want this if we were not booting
under EFI?

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/