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

[Matthew Garrett]

On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 15:01 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
N‹§²æìr¸›yúèšØb²X¬¶ÇvØ^–)Þ{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±‘êçzX§¶›¡Ü}©ž²ÆzÚ&j:+v‰¨¾«‘êçzZ+€Ê+zf£¢·hšˆ§~†­†Ûiÿûàz¹®w¥¢¸?™¨è­Ú&¢)ßf”ù^jÇy§m…á@A«a¶Úÿ0¶ìh®å’i