[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160713083632.GA14038@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:36:32 +0800
From: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Stewart Smith <stewart@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, bhe@...hat.com,
arnd@...db.de, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
vgoyal@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] extend kexec_file_load system call
[snip]
> Now, going back to the more fundamental issue raised in my first reply,
> about the kernel command line.
>
> On x86, I can see that it _is_ possible for userspace to specify a
> command line, and the kernel loading the image provides the command
> line to the to-be-kexeced kernel with very little checking. So, if
> your kernel is signed, what stops the "insecure userspace" loading
> a signed kernel but giving it an insecure rootfs and/or console?
The kexec_file_load syscall was introduced for secure boot in the first
place. In case UEFI secure boot the signature verification chain only
covers kernel mode binaries. I think there is such problem in both normal
boot and kexec boot.
Thanks
Dave
Powered by blists - more mailing lists