[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:25:19 +1000 (AEST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
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: An actual suggestion (Re: [GIT PULL] Kernel lockdown for secure
boot)
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, David Howells wrote:
> > 6. There's a way to *decrease* the lockdown level below the configured
> > value. (This ability itself may be gated by a config option.)
> > Choices include a UEFI protected variable,
>
> By turning secure boot off, maybe?
It's surely reasonable to allow an already secure-booted system to be
debugged without needing to be rebooted.
- James
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists