linux-kernel - Re: Use PCI ROMs from EFI boot services

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]

Date:	Wed, 05 Dec 2012 17:21:44 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
CC:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, mfleming@...el.com, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: Use PCI ROMs from EFI boot services

On 12/05/2012 05:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>
> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
>> And that presumably would be something that cannot be exposed to root?
>> If so we may want to use one of the bits in the setup_data type field
>> as
>> a security flag, perhaps...
>
> Yeah, it needs to be hidden from root - but ideally we'd be passing it to the second kernel if we kexec. Alternative would be for it to be capability bounded to a trusted signed kexec binary if we implement Vivek's IMA-based approach.
>

Either way a security flag in the type field makes sense.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/