[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121206061903.GA3068@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 06:19:03 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
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 Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 05:21:44PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/05/2012 05:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >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.
I've no objection to that, although I'm not sure there's any real reason
to expose an incomplete setup_data to userspace. Any scenario in which
kexec can't read the full data is one where kexec won't be able to
call sys_kexec() anyway.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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