lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown
Date
On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 15:01 -0400, 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.

Which combinations are you envisioning as being useful?

--
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@nebula.com>
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-09 21:21    [W:0.231 / U:0.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site