[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19783.1495695202@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 07:53:22 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org,
matthew.garrett@...ula.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] Add the ability to lock down access to the running kernel image
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCK_DOWN_KERNEL
> > +extern bool kernel_is_locked_down(void);
> > +#else
> > +static inline bool kernel_is_locked_down(void)
>
> Should this be a bool or an int? I can imagine that someone is going to want
> various different degrees of lock down for kernels. As an int you could
> return a bitmap indicating which features were locked. This would allow
> additional things to be locked down without changing the interface.
At the moment it makes no difference, since the return value is only ever
passed directly to an if-statement.
Also, do you have an idea as to how is should be divided up?
There aren't so many cases, at least not yet, that they can't be fixed up,
perhaps with a coccinelle script.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists