Re: Fw: signed kernel modules?

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 10:53, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >
> >cd linux-2.6;
> >patch -R -p1 < ../<modsign patch name>
> >
> >josh
> >
> Yes, but what happens if it gets into the tarballs from kernel.org.
> 
> Stop this nonsense Linus, now.

While my original post was more of a symbolic "I think you're being a
bit over-dramatic" response, it's still valid once it's in a tarball
too.  A tarball is just source that has the patch applied...

I personally don't see anything wrong with concept of signed modules. 
Make it a config option and call it good.  I'd probably never run with
signed modules with a kernel I built myself, but that's my choice. 
Others can choose differently.

Let's separate the technical details from the opinions about whether
such a feature will end the free world as we know it or not.  (Which it
won't).

josh

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/