On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Jessica Yu <j...@kernel.org> wrote: > I understand what the patch is doing, what I don't yet understand is > _why_ you would want to remove the unsigned module taint when > CONFIG_MODULE_SIG is enabled. Which distributions are asking for this > exactly, and for what use cases? I find it a bit contradictory to have > CONFIG_MODULE_SIG enabled and at the same time expect the kernel to > behave as if the option wasn't enabled.
Debian disable CONFIG_MODULE_SIG because of this additional taint (I've Cc:ed Ben who made this change). > I would really prefer not to add extra code to remove what is cosmetic > and still has informational/debug value. If the unsigned module taint > is for whatever reason that bothersome, why can't distro(s) carry a > 2-line patch removing the message and taint for those particular > setups where signatures are considered "irrelevant" even with > CONFIG_MODULE_SIG=y? If it's functionality that distributions want to patch out, it makes sense to provide them with a config option rather than forcing them to maintain a patch separately.
