[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1378661576.2429.16.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 10:32:56 -0700
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 08/11] kexec: Disable at runtime if the kernel
enforces module loading restrictions
On Sun, 2013-09-08 at 17:27 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > It's an argument that CAP_SYS_BOOT is too powerful yes, but if you
> > recall, I said I keep that one. In the rather lame analogy, what I do
> > by giving away CAP_SYS_MODULE and enforcing module signing while keeping
> > CAP_SYS_BOOT is allow people into my conservatory to play with the
> > plants but not into my house to steal the silver ... saying CAP_SYS_BOOT
> > is too powerful doesn't affect that use case because I haven't given
> > away CAP_SYS_BOOT.
>
> Ok, sorry, I had your meaning inverted. Yes, permitting the loading of
> signed modules while preventing the use of kexec is a completely
> reasonable configuration - so reasonable that it's what this patch
> causes the kernel to do automatically.
Well, no, it doesn't because with this patch, *I* can't use kexec ...
you've just locked me out of my own house.
James
--
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