lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown
    From
    On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
    > 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 ;)

    Circles. All I see here are circles.

    Having lived an entire release with a capabilities based mechanism for
    this in Fedora, please no.

    And if you are talking about non-POSIX capabilities as you mentioned
    earlier, that seems to be no different than having securelevel being a
    bitmask of, well, levels. I don't have much opinion on securelevel
    being a big hammer or a bitmask of finer grained things, but I do
    think it's a more manageable way forward. Calling the implementation
    "capabilities" seems to just be unnecessarily confusing.

    josh


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-09-09 22:01    [W:4.647 / U:0.428 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site