From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 13:17:44 +0000 Message-ID: <20121106131743.GB1818@srcf.ucam.org> References: <509766DB.9090906@zytor.com> <87625kh5r2.fsf@xmission.com> <20121105123858.GB4374@srcf.ucam.org> <87sj8nc137.fsf@xmission.com> <20121105202557.GA16076@srcf.ucam.org> <87hap3zbw7.fsf@xmission.com> <20121106031219.GB24235@srcf.ucam.org> <87fw4nv1vj.fsf@xmission.com> <20121106035352.GA24698@srcf.ucam.org> <20121106091217.4a5240f0@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121106091217.4a5240f0-38n7/U1jhRXW96NNrWNlrekiAK3p4hvP@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Alan Cox Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , "H. Peter Anvin" , James Bottomley , Pavel Machek , Chris Friesen , Eric Paris , Jiri Kosina , Oliver Neukum , Josh Boyer , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-security-module-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 09:12:17AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > - is it worth Red Hat doing - that's up to Red Hat's business managers > > - is it worth merging into the kernel - that's not > > The capability bit is small and clean the rest of it is beginning to look > far too ugly for upstream right now. Not to say it might not end up small > and clean in the end. I absolutely agree - the code has to be good enough to be accepted upstream and I've no objection to being told that better implementations must be produced. I do object to being told that there's no point in trying to find an acceptable implementation. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org