From: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@nebula.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
CC: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 08/11] kexec: Disable at runtime if the kernel
 enforces module loading restrictions
Thread-Topic: [PATCH V3 08/11] kexec: Disable at runtime if the kernel
 enforces module loading restrictions
Thread-Index: AQHOqQBlTgRtcELUZ0K5HxHj5bQ8FZm7apqAgAALY9KAAI6QgIAAB7GAgAAE4lqAAAZ8AA==
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 16:59:40 +0000
Message-ID: <1378659580.2300.15.camel@x230>
References: <1378252218-18798-1-git-send-email-matthew.garrett@nebula.com>
	 <1378252218-18798-9-git-send-email-matthew.garrett@nebula.com>
	 <20130908064027.GA3587@kroah.com> <1378622648.2300.4.camel@x230>
	 <20130908072408.GA5092@kroah.com>
	 <CAGXu5jLwCt6RtQC+kxcUC69tMydx8DO2QWDv3jK6_mOyT_iNbA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20130908161859.GA18946@kroah.com> <1378657487.2300.10.camel@x230>
	 <20130908163926.GA19665@kroah.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130908163926.GA19665@kroah.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <EA8EF98376F32C48B29FAF8AB34D7607@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 1230
Lines: 27

On Sun, 2013-09-08 at 09:39 -0700, Greg KH wrote:

> But I want, for other reasons (i.e. safety in layers), signed kernel
> modules.  I also might actually want some debugfs files in some random
> driver (like this series removes).

You want a configuration that makes no sense. There's no reason that the
kernel should make that easy.

> Heck, look at Red Hat.  They have been shipping signed kernel modules
> for _years_ and yet they do not disable kexec.  Have they been "doing it
> wrong" all of this time?   Perhaps people want signed modules just for
> support reasons, not "security" reasons.

Then they do what Red Hat does and don't set CONFIG_SIG_ENFORCE.

> Don't take away those options.

Where's the option to let me let unprivileged users set random MSRs?
Where's the option to let root disable STRICT_DEVMEM at runtime? We
don't offer these options because *they make no sense*. Locking your
door while leaving your window open may make you feel better, but it
doesn't improve the security of your house.

-- 
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@nebula.com>
????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m????????????I?