linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <98455.1352189632@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date:	Tue, 06 Nov 2012 03:13:52 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support

On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 03:12:19 +0000, Matthew Garrett said:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:46:32PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > You have it backwards.  The conclusion here is that having a case where
> > a non-interactive install is possible is not a given.
>
> I deal with customers who perform non-interactive installs. The fact
> that you don't care about that use case is entirely irrelevant to me,
> because you're not the person that I am obliged to satisfy.

You *do* realize that the fact you have some set of customers who
perform non-interactive installs does *not* imply that being able to do
so is a given, right?  The fact it is available and doable for your customers
does *not* mean it's available and doable in general.

There's a big difference between "the design has to deal with the fact that
some customers can do this on some subsets of hardware" and "the design
is free to assume that this is doable".

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped