[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACdnJuuPyL3Qo4jAiJDQvUF9Ctch6Yo2bKezEuQ2KaM5ZZ1vqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 14:27:30 -0800
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
"Bruno E . O . Meneguele" <bmeneg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:18 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY) && arch_ima_get_secureboot())
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY) && arch_ima_get_secureboot()) {
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MODULE_SIG))
> + set_module_sig_enforced();
> return sb_arch_rules;
Linus previously pushed back on having the lockdown features
automatically enabled on secure boot systems. Why are we doing the
same in IMA?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists