[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACdnJut31+ZtiR40nkOjm89cfUxS0EM=w-oG69PtWHbXYJQxPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 16:29:48 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
To: luto@...nel.org
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, jmorris@...ei.org,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
jforbes@...hat.com, linux-man@...r.kernel.org, jlee@...e.com,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Kernel lockdown for secure boot
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:11 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> Can you explain that much more clearly? I'm asking why booting via
> UEFI Secure Boot should enable lockdown, and I don't see what this has
> to do with kexec. And "someone blacklist[ing] your key in the
> bootloader" sounds like a political issue, not a technical issue.
A kernel that allows users arbitrary access to ring 0 is just an
overfeatured bootloader. Why would you want secure boot in that case?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists