On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 01:04:34PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Matthew Garrett > <matthew.garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The conclusion we came to at Plumbers was that this patchset was basically > > fine but that Linus hated the name "securelevel" more than I hate pickled > > herring, so after thinking about this for a few months I've come up with > > "Trusted Kernel". This flag indicates that the kernel is, via some > > external mechanism, trusted and should behave that way. If firmware has > > some way to verify the kernel, it can pass that information on. If userspace > > has some way to verify the kernel, it can set the flag itself. However, > > userspace should not attempt to use the flag as a means to verify that the > > kernel was trusted - untrusted userspace could have set it on an untrusted > > kernel, but by the same metric an untrusted kernel could just set it itself. > > FWIW, I've been running a kernel using this patchset in place of the > patchset Fedora typically carries for this purpose for a bit. Things > appear to be working as expected and the protections remain the same. > > It would be really nice to get this set of patches in so some of the > other patches that depend on them can start being pushed as well. What other patches depend on this series? Why aren't they also in this series? thanks, greg k-h -- 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
