[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1378837571.17615.0.camel@x230.lan>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:26:12 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
CC: David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
"Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"jmorris@...ei.org" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 14:23 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > That's why modern systems require signed firmware updates.
>
> Linux doesn't. Is someone working on adding signature support to the
> runtime firmware loader?
It'd be simple to do so, but so far the model appears to be that devices
that expect signed firmware enforce that themselves.
--
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists