On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:41 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 ;) Circles. All I see here are circles. Having lived an entire release with a capabilities based mechanism for this in Fedora, please no. And if you are talking about non-POSIX capabilities as you mentioned earlier, that seems to be no different than having securelevel being a bitmask of, well, levels. I don't have much opinion on securelevel being a big hammer or a bitmask of finer grained things, but I do think it's a more manageable way forward. Calling the implementation "capabilities" seems to just be unnecessarily confusing. josh -- 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
