Re: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown

[Matthew Garrett]

On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 11:40 -0700, David Lang wrote:
> 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?

There's an existing kernel option for "I want to enforce module
signatures but I don't care about anything else". There isn't for "I
want to prevent userspace from modifying my running kernel".

-- 
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>
¢éì®&Þ~º&¶¬–+-±éÝ¥Šw®žË±Êâmébžìdz¹Þ)í…æèw*jg¬±¨¶‰šŽŠÝj/êäz¹ÞŠà2ŠÞ¨è­Ú&¢)ß«a¶Úþø®G«éh®æj:+v‰¨Šwè†Ù>Wš±êÞiÛaxPjØm¶ŸÿÃ-»+ƒùdš_