Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Fw: signed kernel modules? | From | Josh Boyer <> | Date | Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:17:29 -0500 |
| |
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |