From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:44:22 +0000 Message-ID: <20121031174422.GA19043@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1348152065-31353-1-git-send-email-mjg@redhat.com> <20121029174131.GC7580@srcf.ucam.org> <20121031173728.GA18615@srcf.ucam.org> <20121031174440.009af66f@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121031174440.009af66f@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Takashi Iwai , Jiri Kosina , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 05:44:40PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > That does still leave me a little uneasy as far as the microcode > > licenses go. I don't know that we can distribute signed copies of some > > of them, and we obviously can't sign at the user end. > > You seem to put them in signed rpm packages ? That's not a modification of the files that say "You have permission to distribute unmodified versions of this file". If a lawyer says this is fine, I'm happy. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org