[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <454.1510609487@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 21:44:47 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
"AKASHI, Takahiro" <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Blunck <jblunck@...radead.org>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Marcus Meissner <meissner@...e.de>, Gary Lin <GLin@...e.com>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Firmware signing -- Re: [PATCH 00/27] security, efi: Add kernel lockdown
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> So you don't actually need to sign a lot of PC class firmware because
> it's already signed.
Whilst that may be true, we either have to check signatures on every bit of
firmware that the appropriate driver doesn't say is meant to be signed or not
bother.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists