From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Cyrus-Session-Id: sloti22d1t05-2654832-1522796983-2-14976778836081617523 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 3.0 X-Spam-known-sender: no ("Email failed DMARC policy for domain") X-Spam-charsets: plain='UTF-8' X-IgnoreVacation: yes ("Email failed DMARC policy for domain") X-Resolved-to: linux@kroah.com X-Delivered-to: linux@kroah.com X-Mail-from: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; d=messagingengine.com; s=fm2; t= 1522796983; b=YL4V/XwGbs0T+ImrWHxlmdFYaxCwYq1/pizqGhCBu3tm1OHhkq 9QqitNpKEdTizdkFW2/+8HPYUVHtPjTxtw2u2uZCmcygquyjxxm1ddGzHzQ68lVL QIit+FjhXRE70VxiMtmPxRRkzUJ8iVZlqAoAN15vTxRGO69ECSylTB65LVeDjzPA 5hIWzKevPyrX3rVZmDFra2QtInyqoouLc3KfLFRnOcBe/M+WN6viFadyMcyyWgza 5AiR3C5yTg831Eoltxb/iUk8r4Cq/RiJApAvDVh69yHQnp4r+I7ZSs4LjZb8sM0w 5jzQZd1X6SYBkYuufRnHYzcFtz73t+hXyI2A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:sender:list-id; s= fm2; t=1522796983; bh=HzdpQRlHdHuPXyd36de9GBL8Izo0Mht0TsIMprUY/+ w=; b=ta8FXig7McF1DtWm6fF1YZsFUG0z1iEDoCnUOXM3e3Rbn9zZFUiq7H5FOx haNyyE9J8iDZCayYpEsTGW8Uf3lX/qnge+V3DoPLG9fEc2FCfTYi0DHUJgP7PtC8 9UISpdjtQKKHIzFfj5Mis/D7aYZMvskuV+PZBPo+pWggBpVcGSTAlav1E7axBLB4 AhuA8Y2mlD8ROD1l7ZN+0Es244Fhe9KpK3UTTFQ8DrNS+QJodDy/g9IRYdO6O1AT jo4qVQG7K/yqDX9iT4qnUo/cgBXyVp147nxLQnM0t5hXtRYM/cLAVHJf8/NPCEN4 N7t1NTbeeNONYmjHCUbX4PlsFvvQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx6.messagingengine.com; arc=none (no signatures found); dkim=fail (body has been altered, 2048-bit rsa key sha256) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=jM5bNmCb x-bits=2048 x-keytype=rsa x-algorithm=sha256 x-selector=20161025; dmarc=fail (p=reject,has-list-id=yes,d=reject) header.from=google.com; iprev=pass policy.iprev=209.132.180.67 (vger.kernel.org); spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org smtp.helo=vger.kernel.org; x-aligned-from=fail; x-cm=none score=0; x-google-dkim=fail (body has been altered, 2048-bit rsa key) header.d=1e100.net header.i=@1e100.net header.b=kvTY8Ftd; x-ptr=pass x-ptr-helo=vger.kernel.org x-ptr-lookup=vger.kernel.org; x-return-mx=pass smtp.domain=vger.kernel.org smtp.result=pass smtp_org.domain=kernel.org smtp_org.result=pass smtp_is_org_domain=no header.domain=google.com header.result=pass header_is_org_domain=yes; x-vs=clean score=-100 state=0 Authentication-Results: mx6.messagingengine.com; arc=none (no signatures found); dkim=fail (body has been altered, 2048-bit rsa key sha256) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=jM5bNmCb x-bits=2048 x-keytype=rsa x-algorithm=sha256 x-selector=20161025; dmarc=fail (p=reject,has-list-id=yes,d=reject) header.from=google.com; iprev=pass policy.iprev=209.132.180.67 (vger.kernel.org); spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org smtp.helo=vger.kernel.org; x-aligned-from=fail; x-cm=none score=0; x-google-dkim=fail (body has been altered, 2048-bit rsa key) header.d=1e100.net header.i=@1e100.net header.b=kvTY8Ftd; x-ptr=pass x-ptr-helo=vger.kernel.org x-ptr-lookup=vger.kernel.org; x-return-mx=pass smtp.domain=vger.kernel.org smtp.result=pass smtp_org.domain=kernel.org smtp_org.result=pass smtp_is_org_domain=no header.domain=google.com header.result=pass header_is_org_domain=yes; x-vs=clean score=-100 state=0 X-ME-VSCategory: clean X-CM-Envelope: MS4wfIiE8NWCUMB9sxzQYAJ49THiyelZjx7mZ3xjFOV5jqewwgquKN1pxvUvKLF5fdB+Yrw/zRGuTT1CFSwJiRivJfIOn/H30cxPgl/LrOi7ad6rrhnZ1I2B SxuEXUtn4YphYGvlzQZxxqdx2Nq3DgTW5qfse7q8IN25QAQNyI6ig9AGSHZB4EPpnh9RRuxMUlQVNu8sty1ByXbMZc5k3XQRdDlmo439S14Fi91pv2XhDb6r Aor0CotXgV5XBTaWxfvEXw== X-CM-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=FKU1Odgs c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=UK1r566ZdBxH71SXbqIOeA==:117 a=UK1r566ZdBxH71SXbqIOeA==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=Kd1tUaAdevIA:10 a=VwQbUJbxAAAA:8 a=1XWaLZrsAAAA:8 a=GnypZRjMXmR95pzCGcsA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=x8gzFH9gYPwA:10 a=AjGcO6oz07-iQ99wixmX:22 X-ME-CMScore: 0 X-ME-CMCategory: none Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755922AbeDCXJl (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2018 19:09:41 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f65.google.com ([209.85.214.65]:32977 "EHLO mail-it0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755904AbeDCXJj (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2018 19:09:39 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48LvbbGWb5xzSL0MjVcPKlr3VEO/GzXQ7lEP2d/iDntpnGEwuPVjiUqyw4w9Ldk0THY9c5MGuf2bMRE3IK8nxw= MIME-Version: 1.0 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> In-Reply-To: From: Matthew Garrett Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 23:09:27 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Kernel lockdown for secure boot To: luto@kernel.org Cc: Linus Torvalds , David Howells , Ard Biesheuvel , jmorris@namei.org, Alan Cox , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Linux Kernel Mailing List , jforbes@redhat.com, linux-man@vger.kernel.org, jlee@suse.com, LSM List , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook , linux-efi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: INBOX X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:53 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Lockdown is clearly useful without Secure Boot (and I intend to deploy it > > that way for various things), but I still don't understand why you feel > > that the common case of booting a kernel from a boot chain that's widely > > trusted derives no benefit from it being harder to subvert that kernel into > > subverting that boot chain. For cases where you're self-signing and feel > > happy about that, you just set CONFIG_LOCK_DOWN_IN_EFI_SECURE_BOOT to n and > > everyone's happy? > I would like to see distros that want Secure Boot to annoy users by > enabling Lockdown be honest about the fact that it's an annoyance and > adds very little value by having to carry a patch that was rejected by > the upstream kernel. I disagree with the assertion that it adds very little value, but if you want to reject a technically useful patch for political reasons then I'm well beyond the point of caring.