linux-kernel - Re: [git patches] libata updates, GPG signed (but see admin notes)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4EAF4091.2010205@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:42:57 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
CC:	Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	git@...r.kernel.org,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git patches] libata updates, GPG signed (but see admin notes)

> 
> The main worry is Linus ($human_who_pulls) gets
> cryptographically-verified data at the time he pulls.  Once Linus
> republishes his tree (git push), there will be few, if any, wanting to
> verify Jeff Garzik's signature.
> 
> So no, I don't see that as a _driving_ need in the kernel's case.
> 
> And IMO the kernel will be a mix of signed and unsigned content for a
> while, possibly forever.
> 

I think the desire is to be able to deconstruct things if things were to
go wrong.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/