On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 03:28:39AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:25:08PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 03:13:38AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > > > Because Microsoft have indicated that they'd be taking a reactive > > > approach to blacklisting and because, so far, nobody has decided to > > > write the trivial proof of concept that demonstrates the problem. > > > > Microsoft would take a severe hit both from a PR perspective, as well > > as incurring significant legal risks if they did that in certain > > jourisdictions --- in particular, I suspect in Europe, if Microsoft > > were to break the ability of Linux distributions from booting, it > > would be significantly frowned upon. > > If a Linux vendor chose to knowingly breach the obligations they agreed > to, you don't think there'd be any PR hit?
What "vendor" is there in this case? You released a signed shim, as did the Linux Foundation, and lots of distros are now using it, and there are absolutly no "orginization" behind a bunch of them. Will your signed shim be revoked because a random PoC was posted somewhere that could be used with any kernel booted using it? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
