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

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 09/09/2013 12:01 PM, 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.
> 

I.e. capabilities ;)

	-hpa

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/