[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <s5h7gpz9hc0.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 11:05:51 +0100
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, joeyli <jlee@...e.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Add firmware signature file check
At Tue, 6 Nov 2012 09:20:19 +0000,
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > But how would distro sign modules that are built externally?
> > It should be the pretty same situation.
>
> I would start with the "would" and lawyers and liability and then stop
> worrying about the how. Absent someone actually intending to do it and
> saying so.
Well, what I meant for external built modules are not about things
like nvidia, but rather normal (legal) drivers or updated modules that
are built from out-of-kernel source. I'm sure that distros will
provide such update module packages on the secure boot system, too.
So, discussing about "how" isn't so bad even for now, since this shall
be anyway mandatory (for distros) once when the module signing is
deployed.
Takashi
--
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