On 09/09/2013 12:01 PM, 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. > I.e. capabilities ;) -hpa -- 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
