Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268049AbUJOPlW (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:41:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268080AbUJOPlW (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:41:22 -0400 Received: from siaab2ab.compuserve.com ([149.174.40.130]:10228 "EHLO siaab2ab.compuserve.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268049AbUJOPlS (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:41:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:37:57 -0400 From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Fw: signed kernel modules? To: David Woodhouse Cc: linux-kernel Message-ID: <200410151140_MC3-1-8C5D-1649@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 692 Lines: 18 David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 23:36 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > > No. I still don't know, why the kernel has to do this? You avoided to > > answer this question already before. > > Partly to protect against accidentally-corrupted modules causing damage. OK, so why no integrity-checking code for the kernel itself? Surely it too could be accidentally corrupted... --Chuck Ebbert 15-Oct-04 11:13:15 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/