On Sun, 2013-09-08 at 17:15 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sun, 2013-09-08 at 10:11 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > > That's not true if you look at the use cases. Distros use signed > > modules to taint the kernel: insert an unsigned one and the kernel > > taints; insert a properly signed one and it doesn't. They use it for > > support to tell if you've been adhering to your contract. That use case > > has nothing to do with security. > > That use case has nothing to do with this patch, either. It's completely > unaffected. This only triggers if the kernel is configured to refuse the > loading of unsigned modules. > > > The analogy is rubbish. I can give away CAP_SYS_MODULE and enforce what > > modules those I've given the permission to can insert by signing them. > > I keep CAP_SYS_BOOT, so they can't use kexec to subvert this. > > Yeah, that's a good argument for why capabilities are mostly pointless. > If I have CAP_SYS_BOOT I can give myself any other capabilities. Why > bother? It's an argument that CAP_SYS_BOOT is too powerful yes, but if you recall, I said I keep that one. In the rather lame analogy, what I do by giving away CAP_SYS_MODULE and enforcing module signing while keeping CAP_SYS_BOOT is allow people into my conservatory to play with the plants but not into my house to steal the silver ... saying CAP_SYS_BOOT is too powerful doesn't affect that use case because I haven't given away CAP_SYS_BOOT. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
