From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Friesen Subject: Re: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 10:54:50 -0600 Message-ID: <5093FADA.2040004@genband.com> References: <50919EED.3020601@genband.com> <36538307.gzWq1oO7Kg@linux-lqwf.site> <1351760905.2391.19.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <1351762703.2391.31.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <1351763954.2391.37.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20121101202701.GB20817@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain> <5092E361.7080901@genband.com> <20121102154833.GG3300@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121102154833.GG3300-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Vivek Goyal Cc: Pavel Machek , Eric Paris , James Bottomley , Jiri Kosina , Oliver Neukum , Alan Cox , Matthew Garrett , Josh Boyer , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-security-module-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "Eric W. Biederman" List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 11/02/2012 09:48 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 03:02:25PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: >> With secure boot enabled, then the kernel should refuse to let an >> unsigned kexec load new images, and kexec itself should refuse to >> load unsigned images. > > Yep, good in theory. Now that basically means reimplementing kexec-tools > in kernel. Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't the vendors provide a signed kexec? Why does extra stuff need to be pushed into the kernel? Chris