[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121101215817.79e50ec2@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 21:58:17 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>,
Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>,
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, 1 Nov 2012 21:34:52 +0000
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 09:37:51PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 21:28:43 +0000
> > Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> wrote:
> > > Lawyers won't remove blacklist entries.
> >
> > Fear Uncertainty and Doubt
> >
> > Courts do, injunctions do, the possibilty of getting caught with theirs
> > hands in the till does.
>
> I think you've misunderstood. Blacklist updates are append only.
I think you've misunderstood - thats a technical detail that merely
alters the cost to the people who did something improper.
If Red Hat want to ship a kernel that is very very locked down - fine.
It's a business choice and maybe it'll sell to someone. The
implementation is non-offensive in its mechanism for everyone else so
technically I don't care, but the 'quiver before our new masters and lick
their boots' stuff isn't a technical (or sane business) approach so can
we cut the trying to FUD other people into doing what you believe your
new master requires.
Alan
--
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