On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 02:16:52AM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 03:17:00PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: > >> Why not let apps decide that? We are giving them info on the signed > >> status of drivers and they can make an informed decision. > > > > This is exactly my point, applications cannot say "I'm only using signed > > drivers, don't disable signature checking" with the current series as far > > as I understand it. > > If applications are only going to use signed drivers, they don't need > to disable anything. So really there is no app that is going to need > this API but to get this very important work in, I'll live with a bit > of redundant API. Yes, applications using signed drivers will not need to disable anything. However, my understanding is that you want to use *unsigned* drivers in your application, in that case you need to disable signature verification. You are designing the whole thing with the nominal case being unsigned drivers being case, which makes sense for your use case. The fact that you are using unsigned drivers in the first place is a 'bug' imo, and the right way of handling that is doing whatever it takes to get signed drivers instead the unsigned ones. Hence, the unsigned driver code in libosinfo is just a workaround for that, and since this workaround involves disabling some built-in OS checks, then we need an API to explicitly disable these if that's what we want. I even remember you telling me that MS says signature checks on Win7 should only be disabled in test setups, not on production machines, which seems consistent with not doing this by default in libosinfo.. Christophe
Attachment:
pgpEn2USjTWK1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
