[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120904223957.50f6a3b9@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 22:39:57 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
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
> > Well, given that approximately everyone will be booting under EFI within
> > 18 months, treating it as a niche case seems a little short sighted.
Actually the majority of Linux devices are not PCs 8)
> > secondly, there are already several non-EFI platforms that want to enact
> > a policy preventing root from being able to arbitrarily replace the
> > kernel. Given that people are doing this in the wild, it makes sense to
> > move towards offering that policy in the mainline kernel.
>
> Either this code makes sense without an appeal to EFI or this code makes
> no sense.
Yes - and the capability is I think the right starting point (although
you'll never make any OS locked down this way even if you are not in fact
violating the GPLv2 license by doing so, which I suspect will be the case
for some implementations)
> So please rework this to come from an angle that makes sense all by
> itself.
I think it needs to be defined in terms of what the capability is
supposed to guarantee. I have a feeling Matthew has a pretty clear idea
about that in his head so can nail it fairly precisely ?
Alan
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists