[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27362.1491556638@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 10:17:18 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Chun-Yi Lee <jlee@...e.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org, matthew.garrett@...ula.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/24] kexec_file: Disable at runtime if securelevel has been set
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Okay, fair enough. I can stick in an OR with an IS_ENABLED on some IMA
> > symbol. CONFIG_IMA_KEXEC maybe? And also require IMA be enabled?
>
> Not quite, since as Dave pointed out, IMA is policy driven. As a
> policy is installed, we could set a flag.
Does such a flag exist as yet?
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists