On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 15:01 -0400, valdis.kletni...@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.garr...@nebula.com>
N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{�y����^n�r���z���h�����&�� �G���h�(�階�ݢj"���m������z�ޖ���f���h���~�m�
