Re: [GIT PULL] Kernel lockdown for secure boot
From: Matthew Garrett
Date: Tue Apr 03 2018 - 17:09:14 EST
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 2:01 PM Linus Torvalds
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> .. maybe you don't *want* secure boot, but it's been pushed in your
> >> face by people with an agenda?
> > Then turn it off, or build a self-signed kernel that doesn't do this?
> Umm. So you asked a question, and then when you got an answer you said
> "don't do that then".
> The fact is, some hardware pushes secure boot pretty hard. That has
> *nothing* to do with some "lockdown" mode.
Secure Boot ensures that the firmware will only load signed bootloaders. If
a signed bootloader loads a kernel that's effectively an unsigned
bootloader, there's no point in using Secure Boot - you should just turn it
off instead, because it's not giving you any meaningful security. Andy's
example gives a scenario where by constraining your *userland* sufficiently
you can get close to having the same guarantees, but that involves you
having a read-only filesystem and takes you even further away from having a
general purpose computer.
If you don't want Secure Boot, turn it off. If you want Secure Boot, use a
kernel that behaves in a way that actually increases your security.