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

[Matthew Garrett]

On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 13:15 -0700, David Lang wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 12:59 -0700, David Lang wrote:
> >
> >> At least you should be able to unify the implementation, even if you don't unify
> >> the user visible knob
> >
> > Well sure, I could take this integer and merge another integer into it,
> > but now you have the same value being modified by two different
> > user-visible interfaces which aren't guaranteed to have the same
> > semantics.
> 
> It's not that you merge integers, it's that the knob that currently sets the 
> signed module only loading but not anything else would have it's implementation 
> changed so that instead of doing whatever it currently does, it would instead 
> make an internal call to set the "require signed modules" bit, and that one 
> place would implement the lockdown.

Thanks.

-- 
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_