Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Aug 2017 19:56:47 +0200 | From | Jessica Yu <> | Subject | Re: Allow automatic kernel taint on unsigned module load to be disabled |
| |
+++ Matthew Garrett [14/08/17 12:50 -0400]: >On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Jessica Yu <jeyu@kernel.org> wrote: >> I think I'm missing some context here. Could you provide some more >> background and help me understand why we want to go into all this >> trouble just to avoid a taint? Was there a recent bug report, mailing >> list discussion, etc. that spurred you to write this patch? I'm not >> understanding why this particular taint is undesirable. > >Hi Jessica, > >Does the version in https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/8/7/764 make this clearer?
Hi Matthew,
Sorry for the delay, I'm currently on leave traveling.
I understand what the patch is doing, what I don't yet understand is _why_ you would want to remove the unsigned module taint when CONFIG_MODULE_SIG is enabled. Which distributions are asking for this exactly, and for what use cases? I find it a bit contradictory to have CONFIG_MODULE_SIG enabled and at the same time expect the kernel to behave as if the option wasn't enabled.
I would really prefer not to add extra code to remove what is cosmetic and still has informational/debug value. If the unsigned module taint is for whatever reason that bothersome, why can't distro(s) carry a 2-line patch removing the message and taint for those particular setups where signatures are considered "irrelevant" even with CONFIG_MODULE_SIG=y?
Thanks,
Jessica
| |