From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mjg59@google.com (Matthew Garrett) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 00:16:46 +0000 Subject: [GIT PULL] Kernel lockdown for secure boot In-Reply-To: References: <4136.1522452584@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <186aeb7e-1225-4bb8-3ff5-863a1cde86de@kernel.org> <30459.1522739219@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <9758.1522775763@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <13189.1522784944@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <9349.1522794769@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Message-ID: To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:15 PM Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > >> Exactly like EVERY OTHER KERNEL CONFIG OPTION. > > > > So your argument is that we should make the user experience worse? Without > > some sort of verified boot mechanism, lockdown is just security theater. > > There's no good reason to enable it unless you have some mechanism for > > verifying that you booted something you trust. > Wow. Way to snip the rest of the email where I told you what the > solution was. Let me repeat it here, since you so conveniently missed > it and deleted it: I ignored it because it's not a viable option. Part of the patchset disables various kernel command line options. If there's a kernel command line option that disables the patchset then it's pointless. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html