[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9758.1522775763@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 18:16:03 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
James Morris <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>,
Justin Forbes <jforbes@...hat.com>,
linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>, joeyli <jlee@...e.com>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <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
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> > A kernel that allows users arbitrary access to ring 0 is just an
> > overfeatured bootloader. Why would you want secure boot in that case?
>
> To get a chain of trust.
You don't have a chain of trust that you can trust in that case.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists