From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 21:18:59 +0000 Message-ID: <20121101211859.GA20014@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1351763954.2391.37.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <1351780935.2391.58.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <1351783096.2391.77.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <1351803800.2391.96.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20121101210634.GA19723@srcf.ucam.org> <1351804440.2391.99.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1351804440.2391.99.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Eric Paris , Jiri Kosina , Oliver Neukum , Chris Friesen , Alan Cox , Josh Boyer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 09:14:00PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote: > I agree that's a possibility. However, I think the court of public > opinion would pillory the first Commercial Linux Distribution that went > to Microsoft for the express purpose of revoking their competition's > right to boot. It would be commercial suicide. Oracle are something of a vexatious litigant as far as the court of public opinion is concerned, but even without that it could be a customer who complains. If you're personally comfortable with a specific level of security here, that's fine - but it's completely reasonable for others to feel that there are valid technical and commercial concerns to do this properly. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org