On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 15:01 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx 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. Which combinations are you envisioning as being useful? -- Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{����*jg��������ݢj����G�������j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥