Re: [PATCH v2] x86/ima: require signed kernel modules
From: Matthew Garrett <hidden>
Date: 2019-03-07 22:36:38
Also in:
linux-integrity, lkml
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 2:34 PM Mimi Zohar [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, 2019-03-07 at 14:27 -0800, Matthew Garrett wrote:quoted
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:18 AM Mimi Zohar [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
- 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?