lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] Kernel lockdown for secure boot
    On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Linus Torvalds
    <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
    >
    > Magically changing kernel behavior depending on some subtle and often
    > unintentional bootup behavior detail is completely idiotic.

    Another way of looking at this: if lockdown is a good idea to enable
    when you booted using secure boot, then why isn't it a good idea when
    you *didn't* boot using secure boot?

    That's the flip side of this whole argument.

    People who boot without secure boot may be wanting all the same
    protections. Maybe you have to disable it when you build your own
    kernel, for example. Does that suddenly mean that lockdown is now a
    bad idea?

    And if it does, explain it. Explain why it's a bad idea to enable
    without secure boot, but is a good idea to enable *with* secure boot.

    In other words: explain the tie-in.

    Because I really don't see it. All I see is illogical blathering that
    tries to conflate issues that have nothing to do with each other.

    Please explain to me why a distro or a user would want lockdown to be
    disabled just because the user didn't use secure boot, but suddenly if
    it's booted on another machine, it's not just a good idea, but
    mandatory in your world view?

    Honestly, if I were a distro maintainer, the *last* thing I'd want is
    the kernel to act fundamentally differently in some security context
    depending on some random bootup condition.

    Linus

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-04-04 01:41    [W:4.078 / U:0.156 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site