On Sun, 2013-09-08 at 17:27 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > 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. > > Ok, sorry, I had your meaning inverted. Yes, permitting the loading of > signed modules while preventing the use of kexec is a completely > reasonable configuration - so reasonable that it's what this patch > causes the kernel to do automatically. Well, no, it doesn't because with this patch, *I* can't use kexec ... you've just locked me out of my own house. 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
