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

H. Peter Anvin
2013-09-09T19:42:40Z

On 09/09/2013 12:01 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 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