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

David Lang
2013-09-09T18:40:58Z

On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 11:25 -0700, David Lang wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> There's already a kernel option for that.

So, if there is an existing kernel option for this, why do we need a new one?

David Lang