From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 12:41:59 -0700 Message-ID: <522E2487.90109@zytor.com> References: <1378741786-18430-1-git-send-email-matthew.garrett@nebula.com> <19562.1378747124@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <27562.1378753264@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <27562.1378753264-+bZmOdGhbsPr6rcHtW+onFJE71vCis6O@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Valdis.Kletnieks-PjAqaU27lzQ@public.gmane.org Cc: David Lang , Matthew Garrett , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, keescook-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, jmorris-gx6/JNMH7DfYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, linux-security-module-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 09/09/2013 12:01 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks-PjAqaU27lzQ@public.gmane.org wrote: > On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 11:25:38 -0700, David Lang said: > >> Given that we know that people want signed binaries without >> blocking kexec, you should have '1' just enforce module signing >> and '2' (or higher) implement a full lockdown including kexec. > >> Or, eliminate the -1 permanently insecure option and make this a >> bitmask, if someone wants to enable every possible lockdown, have >> them set it to "all 1's", define the bits only as you need them. > > This strikes me as much more workable than one big sledgehammer. > I.e. capabilities ;) -hpa