linux-kernel - Re: [PULL REQUEST] Kernel lockdown patches for 5.2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACdnJuuib7kYEw1o0Bh1p=X+MmJH+pqupECWnWTJ2e2jE2XRkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Mar 2019 20:24:49 -0800
From:   Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     jmorris@...ei.org,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PULL REQUEST] Kernel lockdown patches for 5.2

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 7:56 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> The kexec and kernel modules patches in this patch set continues to
> ignore IMA.  This patch set should up front either provide an
> alternative solution to coordinate the different signature
> verification methods or rely on the architecture specific policy for
> that coordination.

Hi Mimi,

I'm working on a patch for this at the moment which can then be added
to either patchset. Is there a tree that contains the proposed Power
architecture policy? I want to make sure I don't accidentally end up
depending on anything x86.