[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1497857596.2259.3.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:33:16 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: wagi@...om.org, dwmw2@...radead.org, rafal@...ecki.pl,
arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
yi1.li@...ux.intel.com, atull@...nsource.altera.com,
moritz.fischer@...us.com, pmladek@...e.com,
emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com, luciano.coelho@...el.com,
kvalo@...eaurora.org, luto@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, keescook@...omium.org,
takahiro.akashi@...aro.org, dhowells@...hat.com, pjones@...hat.com,
hdegoede@...hat.com, alan@...ux.intel.com, tytso@....edu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] firmware: add extensible driver data params
On Sat, 2017-06-17 at 21:38 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> But we don't accept kernel patches for some mythical future option
> that might be happening some time in the future. Heck, I'm still not
> convinced that firmware signing isn't anything more than just some
> snakeoil in the first place!
I for one really want the "firmware" signing, because I want to load
the regulatory database through this API, and
But honestly, I've been waiting for years for that now and started
looking at what it would take to hand-implement that on top of the
existing firmware API. Probably not all that much.
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists