From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758628Ab3BZEuN (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:50:13 -0500
Received: from mail-pb0-f49.google.com ([209.85.160.49]:52270 "EHLO
	mail-pb0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754288Ab3BZEuK (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:50:10 -0500
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:50:07 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Josh Boyer <jwboyer@redhat.com>, Peter Jones <pjones@redhat.com>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        keyrings@linux-nfs.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Load keys from signed PE binaries
Message-ID: <20130226045007.GA21390@kroah.com>
References: <20130226005955.GA19686@kroah.com>
 <20130226023332.GA29282@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20130226030249.GB23834@kroah.com>
 <20130226031338.GA29784@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20130226033156.GA24999@kroah.com>
 <20130226033803.GA30285@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20130226035416.GA1128@kroah.com>
 <20130226040456.GA30717@srcf.ucam.org>
 <20130226041324.GA7241@kroah.com>
 <CAPM=9tzTXL_mystUa2=hGGzNZaYH==pMwt_PMLsWuqpRTs335g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPM=9tzTXL_mystUa2=hGGzNZaYH==pMwt_PMLsWuqpRTs335g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:25:55PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >>
> >> Right. We've failed at creating an alternative. That doesn't mean that
> >> we get to skip the responsibilities associated with the choice we've
> >> made.
> >
> > Wait, who is "we" here?  The community?  The community over-all didn't
> > agree with anything with Microsoft, that is between the people getting a
> > signed key and Microsoft.  Again, you are trying to push your (prior)
> > company's agreement between them and Microsoft onto the community, and
> > now the community is pushing back, is that a surprise?
> 
> Do you not work for the LF?, Matthew doesn't work for RH, so please
> leave the petty my employer said this, and he's better than your
> employer and try and stick to technical details.

No, sorry, I'm not trying to say that at all (and my LF employment
agreement is quite weird, I don't speak for them at all, and they can't
tell me what to do, and everyone is happy.)

I am trying to say that the "we" here is NOT the community.  The
community does not have any "responsibility" to Microsoft or any
corporate.  Our only responsibility is to our users, as Linus stated.

thanks,

greg k-h