[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171207142657.52e1363a@alans-desktop>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:26:57 +0000
From: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Gary Lin <glin@...e.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Joey Lee <jlee@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 PATCH 0/2] Introduce Security Version to EFI Stub
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:01:46 +0800
Gary Lin <glin@...e.com> wrote:
> The series of patches introduce Security Version to EFI stub.
>
> Security Version is a monotonically increasing number and designed to
> prevent the user from loading an insecure kernel accidentally. The
> bootloader maintains a list of security versions corresponding to
> different distributions. After fixing a critical vulnerability, the
> distribution kernel maintainer bumps the "version", and the bootloader
> updates the list automatically.
This seems a mindbogglingly complicated way to implement something you
could do with a trivial script in the package that updates the list of
iffy kernels and when generating the new grub.conf puts them in a menu
of 'old insecure' kernels.
Why do you even need this in the EFI stub ?
What happens if you want to invalidate an old kernel but not push a new
one ? Today if you've got a package that maintains the list of 'iffy'
kernels you can push a tiny package, under your scheme you've got to push
new kernels which is an un-necessary and high risk OS change.
It just feels like an attempt to solve the problem in completely the
wrong place.
Alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists