From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753330Ab2KFDyW (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:54:22 -0500
Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:35596 "EHLO
	cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751697Ab2KFDyU (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:54:20 -0500
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 03:53:52 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@genband.com>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.de>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support
Message-ID: <20121106035352.GA24698@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <20121104135251.GA17894@srcf.ucam.org>
 <87d2zsmv8r.fsf@xmission.com>
 <509766DB.9090906@zytor.com>
 <87625kh5r2.fsf@xmission.com>
 <20121105123858.GB4374@srcf.ucam.org>
 <87sj8nc137.fsf@xmission.com>
 <20121105202557.GA16076@srcf.ucam.org>
 <87hap3zbw7.fsf@xmission.com>
 <20121106031219.GB24235@srcf.ucam.org>
 <87fw4nv1vj.fsf@xmission.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87fw4nv1vj.fsf@xmission.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on cavan.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 07:36:32PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

> For automated installs you don't have to satisfy me.  Feel free to
> deliver a lousy solution to your users.   Just don't use your arbitrary
> design decisions to justify your kernel patches.

My kernel patches are justified by genuine user requirements. If you 
don't feel that there's any requirement for the kernel to satisfy the 
people who use it, you're free to ignore those patches.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org