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

David Lang
2013-09-09T18:53:47Z

On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 11:40 -0700, David Lang wrote:
>> 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?
>
> There's an existing kernel option for "I want to enforce module
> signatures but I don't care about anything else". There isn't for "I
> want to prevent userspace from modifying my running kernel".

So is there a way to unify these different things rather than creating yet
another different knob?

David Lang