[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyrDUPj_VscC2T+erHeUHZws_ixuRiU4HDWmoeOSZO1QQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 16:10:55 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Justin Forbes <jforbes@...hat.com>,
linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>, joeyli <jlee@...e.com>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Kernel lockdown for secure boot
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> This discussion is over until you give an actual honest-to-goodness
> reason for why you tied the two features together. No more "Why not?"
> crap.
Side note: I suspect the reason is something along the lines of "there
are political reasons".
But dammit, if that's the case, those should be documented and
explained, not answered with "why not" when people ask why something
is the case.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists