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

Matthew Garrett
2013-09-09T18:42:46Z

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 902 bytes --]

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".

--
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¥