Received: by 10.213.65.68 with SMTP id h4csp164805imn; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 17:58:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/6s3/9YHYm8qXe8g3O5K2HKp3wGoG6h6obAsvRVAsDcrtxGWimp1OnYkgTzt7P8kGumvkt X-Received: by 10.101.78.131 with SMTP id b3mr10634507pgs.8.1522803507761; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 17:58:27 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1522803507; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=CA/1bi7bzckjNEklKa8+c3PRJIL7gSgfKgATA6eRHe6YLCrE+R2jXfa4HajH9h2GkJ b+2uIWicOavhPmIMOAjsllhPSMh6TuQb3IVOhPNEeB9nLBvoONjXe4xtjpa3tbum8ZfK uP6ny9uutr3oXNxfooonePFQbwajH8DMOT6WfSZypU/wOyz2pEu4dxv22IRtAOn4WLGH eTTrd9F2ul2E8PVI3OVQCbkPsKYfPshfA5yHQR3QNLFiofEpMjd/9OaWDpGvJnVXF90u 1yMWqnguBqVnpV5qyJqTvCwUU0rdMuNZt2+wN6PEi334LEL3RqtTUGyO4R+EAAAfa2gR boRQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:dkim-signature:dkim-signature :arc-authentication-results; bh=Rq0Hbi1DcDacTXE3cErsLkrKYEbQzbF5pMhcCT6Md0Y=; b=H0XcGj8WJa+gNJ5oe7SLghXMObfW0ZPZ9mAPu8QkzHmnHYx1hYgv0tqWq8AlSwkX6J m4kw7w3Y39d0vCRaPPwM96QHZ8g5sRPDvBpFpIlV8FfzX/Q3Ksg2YdXqpJifpHjMKogF OvAS6of175faO2kd/qCbi4qa1WNNjYcPmCpK6CYF0EDKGIZjpulwoiVs5wQ94KP38bsI K1cLfHBNO55A5ZErl3dckvhgnf8DjP16DZqtmAwn2veywYz8T5QpdzPMyhfcpcpkLf1+ vcdmUGj+NgWpPORvXc54WAr5oqzX7Um6U/n5r4kMuamQdXRycB5PRmWlHz4Z42G6dSU3 JFLQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=fail header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=M4UD+SN3; dkim=fail header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.s=google header.b=Q9AeUzqE; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id o18si3097921pfa.346.2018.04.03.17.58.13; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 17:58:27 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=fail header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=M4UD+SN3; dkim=fail header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.s=google header.b=Q9AeUzqE; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754848AbeDDA4t (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 3 Apr 2018 20:56:49 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f195.google.com ([209.85.223.195]:44398 "EHLO mail-io0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754803AbeDDA4p (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2018 20:56:45 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-f195.google.com with SMTP id d7so24216426ioc.11; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 17:56:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=Rq0Hbi1DcDacTXE3cErsLkrKYEbQzbF5pMhcCT6Md0Y=; b=M4UD+SN3IJ1nWyj54Lzek1X8hfRlHyDOvlGPTAOTU/B6ssZmO2wIVhoh9oGIAHrA7m XCEPR393ibS/9MH1kBitq7NCKUFHsoITNQtEqq0Vav+irFdjgelDRe75+mIvFaNTasRA zGiu7WRNutFSKYTsEhOAOBMPGHuqRHC2853okwmnSShV+NDSWNQzBeEoJKKF3oYfr25N EH582IvgQx7eCQCLDJEWPWFUN5dJDR5L7XAzNxNn2BjYmeEVfNGFMpUZNyTw3prmFk28 fZP1BvOhJc2eouy3eDfZ111ZU2xaX6Qfe4EnC6b7Q5r8msfh5sXh4WxXVQ4DA8BMxQ7+ nfkg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=Rq0Hbi1DcDacTXE3cErsLkrKYEbQzbF5pMhcCT6Md0Y=; b=Q9AeUzqEZg7jMg71T4rjQgYGTmTCQr6QeRSfh5y9ch8xGet9TMe6LAipvkb0LbK50e Dcy3uXG7M3KXdBb0EUMYIxLSdI/bGZOfrLEQ2WnPJhcRZ+QXS3iPGuIDzTlPnX1uL4M4 ZjpArIbvZGXnE6lKKssxdlTUq0+m2lbD+bKtk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Rq0Hbi1DcDacTXE3cErsLkrKYEbQzbF5pMhcCT6Md0Y=; b=DE2UwcS40bwetuhtab3APpsRqEshgQ//Ft1xsNLN5jwvgguxJ/mkE7FIQLkCrYp7YL MhYNEvljIMG89neF4/bciwNhXThLm1edEh9zga/j9n3j59PZ3LpqjfhuS+/Icjc8+MAE 5gPo/XBqvM6RmaeZSfRIkM9zEoI/Z1iK97FxHgzxgeIlfiZ0E146K8e9n5wRqFOg6JMZ nQT0KMkEwc1FiVBnH+qgZ/HDC24oC4+ulMVi+UFSit8wtWTixKMJ/zjLOAacg/NEvM0u 4oz+U2HVAjQlPmtWPxV3vJmFAm8dyxBM+dgXwLkOxkm11sMdKqBfcimjYg11/A4lcFqK Z6EQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBF6G6N7Oqqa7S90u36JxYSS9hyHzHSw2qSb4ZZNRtw0VonBSpN fJYfH0qYnkJQmuYRem7Ppu+q8Dy9VdMhQ7+Sfx3bZg== X-Received: by 10.107.12.201 with SMTP id 70mr14572399iom.48.1522803404603; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 17:56:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.95.15 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 17:56:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4136.1522452584@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <186aeb7e-1225-4bb8-3ff5-863a1cde86de@kernel.org> <30459.1522739219@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <9758.1522775763@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <13189.1522784944@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <9349.1522794769@warthog.procyon.org.uk> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 17:56:43 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: BO-Z0aaARvuvOjkSwGiK6AOPP1I Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Kernel lockdown for secure boot To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Andrew Lutomirski , David Howells , Ard Biesheuvel , James Morris , Alan Cox , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Justin Forbes , linux-man , joeyli , LSM List , Linux API , Kees Cook , linux-efi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > The generic distros have been shipping this policy for the past 5 years. .. so apparently it doesn't actually break things? Why not enable it by default then? And if "turn off secure boot" really is the accepted - and actuially used - workaround for the breakage, then WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU START OFF BY EXPLAINING THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE WHEN PEOPLE ASKED WHY THE TIE-IN EXISTED? Sorry for shouting, but really. We have a thread of just *how* many email messages that asked for the explanation for this? All we got was incomprehensible and illogical crap explanations. If there actually was a good explanation for the tie-in, it should have been front-and-center and explained as such. Linus