[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 09:52:51 -0400
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
luto@...nel.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
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@...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 Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 02:33:37PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
>
> > Whoa. Why doesn't lockdown prevent kexec? Put another away, why
> > isn't this a problem for people who are fearful that Linux could be
> > used as part of a Windows boot virus in a Secure UEFI context?
>
> Lockdown mode restricts kexec to booting an authorised image (where the
> authorisation may be by signature or by IMA).
If that's true, then Matthew's assertion that lockdown w/o secure boot
is insecure goes away, no?
- Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists