lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-09 21:01    [W:0.287 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site