[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyOCh=+xSzZwWBjFbx5hU48pGEoSSXq2TPa-u-VabJfOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 09:20:33 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Abelardo Ricart III <aricart@...nix.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>, keyrings@...ux-nfs.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Should we automatically generate a module signing key at all?
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:04 AM, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Should we instead provide a script:
>
> ./scripts/generate-key
>
> That generates a key if run and make it so that the build fails if you turn on
> module signing and there's no key.
That would just be stupid.
I'm not ever applying a patch like that. That would absolutely destroy
the sane "git clean + rebuild" model.
Why the hell would you want to make the sane case that people actually
*use* be harder to use.
Nobody sane bothers with long-term keys. They are inconvenient and less secure.
Put the onus on making it inconvenient on those people who actually
have special keys, not on normal people.
Linus
--
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