From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: Do not allow MSR or Embedded Controller writes from userspace in secure boot case Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:47:14 +0000 Message-ID: <20121108144714.GA24764@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1352323699-52400-1-git-send-email-trenn@suse.de> <20121107215403.GA7277@srcf.ucam.org> <509AE5DA.1030508@zytor.com> <201211081538.34091.trenn@suse.de> <20121108144125.GC24094@srcf.ucam.org> <509BC53B.5070304@shealevy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <509BC53B.5070304-yfkUTty7RcRWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Shea Levy Cc: Thomas Renninger , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, matt.fleming-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, jlee-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 09:44:11AM -0500, Shea Levy wrote: > How is secureboot_enable=no ok? Unless we're disabling efivarfs in > secureboot mode root can change the kernel command line. What do you mean by "ok"? Ubuntu ship a signed kernel without requiring signed modules, so any in-kernel protections can be trivially circumvented. They've made that decision based on a risk/benefit analysis. Every vendor is going to have to make their own analysis, and it's not guaranteed that the upstream kernel is going to precisely match any of them. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org