[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230512104753.GA14461@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 11:47:53 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com, ardb@...nel.org,
James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, luto@...capital.net,
nivedita@...m.mit.edu, kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com,
trenchboot-devel@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/14] Documentation/x86: Secure Launch kernel
documentation
On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 02:50:11PM +0000, Ross Philipson wrote:
> +Secure Launch does not interoperate with KASLR. If possible, the MLE should be
> +built with KASLR disabled::
Why does Secure Launch not interoperate with KASLR?
Re: IOMMUs
> +It is recommended that no other command line options should be set to override
> +the defaults above.
What happens if they are? Does doing so change the security posture of
the system? If so, will the measurements be different in a way that
demonstrates the system is in an insecure state?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists