Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules | From | Mimi Zohar <> | Date | Thu, 07 Mar 2019 17:41:38 -0500 |
| |
On Thu, 2019-03-07 at 14:36 -0800, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 2:34 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2019-03-07 at 14:27 -0800, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:18 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY) && arch_ima_get_secureboot()) > > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IMA_ARCH_POLICY) && arch_ima_get_secureboot()) { > > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MODULE_SIG)) > > > > + set_module_sig_enforced(); > > > > return sb_arch_rules; > > > > > > Linus previously pushed back on having the lockdown features > > > automatically enabled on secure boot systems. Why are we doing the > > > same in IMA? > > > > IMA-appraisal is extending the "secure boot" concept to the running > > system. > > Right, but how is this different to what Linus was objecting to?
Both Andy Lutomirski and Linus objected to limiting the "lockdown" patch set to secure boot enabled systems.
Mimi
| |