[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121101211859.GA20014@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 21:18:59 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>,
Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 09:14:00PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> I agree that's a possibility. However, I think the court of public
> opinion would pillory the first Commercial Linux Distribution that went
> to Microsoft for the express purpose of revoking their competition's
> right to boot. It would be commercial suicide.
Oracle are something of a vexatious litigant as far as the court of
public opinion is concerned, but even without that it could be a
customer who complains. If you're personally comfortable with a specific
level of security here, that's fine - but it's completely reasonable for
others to feel that there are valid technical and commercial concerns to
do this properly.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists