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

Matthew Garrett
2013-09-09T19:08:23Z

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 872 bytes --]

On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 15:01 -0400, 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.

Which combinations are you envisioning as being useful?

--
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@nebula.com>
ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éÝ¶\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dÊ‡Ú™ë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥