From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S940489AbdEZMnT (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 May 2017 08:43:19 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60928 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756066AbdEZMnP (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 May 2017 08:43:15 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 298F19785D Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dhowells@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 298F19785D Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: References: <80bdc6c9-004b-800f-ffd0-4b5ebf8cdeba@schaufler-ca.com> <149563711758.9419.11406612723056598045.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <149563714531.9419.16811189348445249219.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <19783.1495695202@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Casey Schaufler Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, matthew.garrett@nebula.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] Add the ability to lock down access to the running kernel image MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <22658.1495802592.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:43:12 +0100 Message-ID: <22659.1495802592@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Fri, 26 May 2017 12:43:15 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Casey Schaufler wrote: > You called out five distinct features in 0/5, so how about > a bit for each of those? Actually, there are more than five in that list - there are three in the first item - and I'm not sure the remaining categories are quite as well defined as I made it seem. Also, that sort of categorisation might not be what we actually need: it might end up coming down to a no-write vs no-read-or-write split instead. > Actually, I don't care which way you go. The current code works > for me. I am just concerned that the granularity fiends might come > around later. In that case, I'll leave it as is for the moment. It doesn't introduce so many calls that they're impossible to change. David