On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 05:21:44PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 12/05/2012 05:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >Yeah, it needs to be hidden from root - but ideally we'd be passing it to > >the second kernel if we kexec. Alternative would be for it to be capability > >bounded to a trusted signed kexec binary if we implement Vivek's IMA-based > >approach. > > > > Either way a security flag in the type field makes sense.
I've no objection to that, although I'm not sure there's any real reason to expose an incomplete setup_data to userspace. Any scenario in which kexec can't read the full data is one where kexec won't be able to call sys_kexec() anyway. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
