[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzrK29hbxoKs3GsvVUY4_uR7aBgZv2eeVyVq7MzfATY3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 14:09:10 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"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>,
Jan Blunck <jblunck@...radead.org>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Marcus Meissner <meissner@...e.de>, Gary Lin <GLin@...e.com>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Firmware signing -- Re: [PATCH 00/27] security, efi: Add kernel lockdown
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:44 PM, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
I vote for "not bother".
Seriously, if you have firmware in /lib/firmware, and you don't trust
it, what the hell are you doing?
Oh, it's one of those "let's protect people from themselves, so that
they can't possibly break Disney^W^W be terrorists - but but the
children" things again, isn't it?
Watch me care.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists