From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Kernel lockdown for secure boot Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 17:56:43 -0700 Message-ID: References: <4136.1522452584@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <186aeb7e-1225-4bb8-3ff5-863a1cde86de@kernel.org> <30459.1522739219@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <9758.1522775763@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <13189.1522784944@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <9349.1522794769@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Andrew Lutomirski , David Howells , Ard Biesheuvel , James Morris , Alan Cox , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Justin Forbes , linux-man , joeyli , LSM List , Linux API , Kees Cook , linux-efi List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > The generic distros have been shipping this policy for the past 5 years. .. so apparently it doesn't actually break things? Why not enable it by default then? And if "turn off secure boot" really is the accepted - and actuially used - workaround for the breakage, then WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU START OFF BY EXPLAINING THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE WHEN PEOPLE ASKED WHY THE TIE-IN EXISTED? Sorry for shouting, but really. We have a thread of just *how* many email messages that asked for the explanation for this? All we got was incomprehensible and illogical crap explanations. If there actually was a good explanation for the tie-in, it should have been front-and-center and explained as such. Linus