Re: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown

David Lang
2013-09-09T20:16:04Z

On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 12:59 -0700, David Lang wrote:
>
>> At least you should be able to unify the implementation, even if you don't unify
>> the user visible knob
>
> Well sure, I could take this integer and merge another integer into it,
> but now you have the same value being modified by two different
> user-visible interfaces which aren't guaranteed to have the same
> semantics.

It's not that you merge integers, it's that the knob that currently sets the
signed module only loading but not anything else would have it's implementation
changed so that instead of doing whatever it currently does, it would instead
make an internal call to set the "require signed modules" bit, and that one
place would implement the lockdown.

David Lang