On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:10 PM, David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 09/09/2013 12:01 PM, 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. >>>> >>> >>> I.e. capabilities ;) >> >> >> Circles. All I see here are circles. > > > the thing is that these are not circles. they are separate orthoginal things > that you may or may not want to allow. > > If this was a simple set of circles, then this could be defined as a vector > instead of bitmap, the further you go the more secure you are.
I didn't mean your recommendation of using a bitmask. I understood your proposal and I don't even disagree with it really. I was replying to something else. josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
