[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 15:44:28 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.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>,
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@...capital.net> wrote:
> > Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> >> As far as I can tell, what's really going on here is that there's a
> >> significant contingent here that wants to prevent Linux from
> >> chainloading something that isn't Linux.
> >
> > You have completely the wrong end of the stick. No one has said that or
> > even implied that. You are alleging dishonesty on our part.
>
> I'm alleging that the idea that Linux seems some particular policy to
> avoid being blacklisted keeps being brought up as a justification for
> these patches.
No, you were alleging that "[we want] to prevent Linux from chainloading
something that isn't Linux.".
This is not true - at least, it's not true on my part; I cannot speak for what
other people may think privately.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists