[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1393563161.5607.0.camel@x230.lan>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:52:42 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
To: "jmorris@...ei.org" <jmorris@...ei.org>
CC: "jwboyer@...oraproject.org" <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: Trusted kernel patchset for Secure Boot lockdown
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 14:03 +1100, James Morris wrote:
> Ok, which tree should take this? I'm happy to, although most of it is
> outside security/ .
Security might make the most sense - I don't think any of the additional
restrictions (beyond kexec, and I think we've hashed that argument out
now) are terribly controversial.
--
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists