Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755873Ab3IIUN7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:13:59 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com ([209.85.214.176]:40962 "EHLO mail-ob0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755461Ab3IIUN4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:13:56 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1378741786-18430-1-git-send-email-matthew.garrett@nebula.com> <19562.1378747124@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <27562.1378753264@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <522E2487.90109@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:13:56 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] One more attempt at useful kernel lockdown From: Josh Boyer To: David Lang Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Valdis Kletnieks , Matthew Garrett , "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" , Kees Cook , Greg KH , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , James Morris , linux-security-module Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1583 Lines: 44 On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:10 PM, David Lang wrote: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2013, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> >>> On 09/09/2013 12:01 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@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-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/