[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130117152141.GB12165@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:21:41 -0500
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: "Kasatkin, Dmitry" <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pjones@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
dhowells@...hat.com, jwboyer@...hat.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] binfmt_elf: Verify signature of signed elf binary
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 05:06:09PM +0200, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote:
[..]
> One important thing to mention.
> Protecting ELF-only does not help too much in protecting the system.
> There are plenty of init, upstart and systemd scripts which must be
> verified as well. IMA does it.
Actually that would be a different requirement altogether. I am not
trying to verify all the processes started by root. I am just trying
to sign and verify signature of select user process and if signature
are verified, kernel grants those processes extra capability and allow
calling sys_kexec() when secureboot is enabled.
So for my use case, I don't care if there are so many other unsigned
processes running in the system.
Thanks
Vivek
--
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