[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 21:34:52 +0000
Matthew Garrett <> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 09:37:51PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 21:28:43 +0000
> > Matthew Garrett <> wrote:
> > > Lawyers won't remove blacklist entries.
> >
> > Fear Uncertainty and Doubt
> >
> > Courts do, injunctions do, the possibilty of getting caught with theirs
> > hands in the till does.
> I think you've misunderstood. Blacklist updates are append only.

I think you've misunderstood - thats a technical detail that merely
alters the cost to the people who did something improper.

If Red Hat want to ship a kernel that is very very locked down - fine.
It's a business choice and maybe it'll sell to someone. The
implementation is non-offensive in its mechanism for everyone else so
technically I don't care, but the 'quiver before our new masters and lick
their boots' stuff isn't a technical (or sane business) approach so can
we cut the trying to FUD other people into doing what you believe your
new master requires.


 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-01 23:21    [W:0.195 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site