| Date | Mon, 9 Sep 2013 11:40:49 -0700 (PDT) | From | David Lang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown |
| |
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?
David Lang
|