On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:14:53PM -0800, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > On Wednesday 14 February 2007 21:45, Dave Jones wrote: > > well, the situation for external modules is no worse than usual. > > They still work, they just aren't signed. Which from a distributor point > > of view, is actually a nice thing, as they stick out like a sore thumb > > in oops reports with (U) markers :) > > I agree, that's really what should happen. We solve this by marking modules as > supported, partner supported, or unsupported, but in an "insecure" way, so > partners and users could try to fake the support status of a module and/or > remove status flags from Oopses, and cryptography wouldn't save us. We could > try to sign Oopses which I guess you guys are doing. This whole issue hasn't > been a serious problem in the past though, and we generally try to trust > users not to play games on us. For the most part it works out. I've had users file oopses where they've editted out Tainted: P, and left in nvidia(U) for example :-) Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html