[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFy5EPxAyqyGGaYUUyakuLbjXHiseWCkz-oNdo=Y-878tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:53:06 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
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 <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 9:29 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com> wrote:
> 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?
.. maybe you don't *want* secure boot, but it's been pushed in your
face by people with an agenda?
Seriously.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists