Re: kernel modules does not have signatures, so taints kernel

2016-06-01 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Wed, 2016-06-01 at 14:38 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 06/01/2016 02:34 PM, Anatoly Pugachev wrote: > > If module signing only for Secure Boot on EFI [2], why do we have > > it on sparc64? > > Looks like an oversight to me. The kernels for the different > architectures share > so

Re: kernel modules does not have signatures, so taints kernel

2016-06-01 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 06/01/2016 02:34 PM, Anatoly Pugachev wrote: > If module signing only for Secure Boot on EFI [2], why do we have it on > sparc64? Looks like an oversight to me. The kernels for the different architectures share some of the configuration, so it might just be a bug that this particular option sh

kernel modules does not have signatures, so taints kernel

2016-06-01 Thread Anatoly Pugachev
Ben, hello! Can you please tell, why do we have in kernel config file: CONFIG_MODULE_SIG=y CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY="" so loading any kernel module (checked with sid/unstable with kernels linux-image-4.5.0-2-amd64 and linux-image-4.5.0-2-sparc64-smp ) taints kernel : on x86_64: mator@windrunner:~