Re: Fw: signed kernel modules?

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 15 October 2004 08:10, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Roman Zippel wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, David Howells wrote:
>>> I've uploaded an updated module signing patch with Rusty's
>>> suggested additions:
>>
>> Can someone please put this patch into some context, where it's
>> not completely pointless? As is it does not make anything more
>> secure. Why is the kernel more trustable than a kernel module?
>> If someone could show me how I can trust the running kernel, it
>> should be rather easy to extend the same measures to modules
>> without the need for this patch.
>>
>> bye, Roman
>> -

If you please, allow me to second the below gentlemans point of view.
Its an extremely valid objection in this persons aged opinion.  A road 
down which we should not even glance, let alone travel.  Do I hear a 
full chorus of voices here?  I certainly hope so.  This patch is best 
dropped in the shredder.

>This is just the first step, which I think must be quashed
>immediately. The ultimate goal is to control what you put
>into your computer. Eventually, some central licensing
>authority will certify any modules that are allowed to
>be run in your computer. Doesn't anybody else see this?
>
>Freedom isn't lost in one big step when the storm-troopers
>show up at your door. It is lost in little pieces, each
>so small that they tend to be ignored.
>
>We need to stop this nonsense now. Certainly persons who
>lived, or still live, under highly regulated governmental
>control, know that we must prevent some select group of
>self-appointed authorities from controlling what we put
>into our computers. In particular, when the five to
>ten-thousand who contributed to the kernel, thought that
>they were performing a service for the common good, not
>to be taken from them and hidden behind some license.
>
>I developed one of the first SCSI controllers for Linux,
>back when Linus was in Helsinki. I did this because I
>bought a new SCSI disk and controller. It worked under
>DOS, but not Linux. Nobody, in those days, thought
>anything about modules and licenses, etc. We just wanted
>to make Linux better. Then, when I was working on some
>other drivers, I needed to be able to change code without
>having to re-boot. I made the first primitive 'module' to
>do this. The old driver was not actually removed nor
>even overwritten. I just made a program to perform
>fix-ups in user-mode, and a built-in driver to allocate
>memory, load the fixed-up code, and change pointers
>to point to new code. This allowed me to write drivers
>and install them without having to re-boot. Eventually,
>the system would run out of memory and I'd have to
>reboot, but in the meantime, I could continue
>development. This was all the precursor of the more
>modern 'modules' by Laarhoven and Tombs.
>
>Now, I've watched through the years where every bit
>of code that the original contributors wrote, was
>overwritten. It was not necessarily better, only
>different. Even the names of contributors have been
>removed. The name-removers still haven't removed the
>last vestige of my contributions although they probably
>will now, but I'll make it difficult to find them...
>
>Script started on Fri 15 Oct 2004 07:51:34 AM EDT
># for x in `find . -name "*.c"` ; do grep rjohnson@ $x ; done
>     rjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx : Changed init order so an interrupt will
> only rjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx : Fix up PIO interface for efficient
> operation. # exit
>Script done on Fri 15 Oct 2004 07:52:45 AM EDT
>
>Then, a certain Richard Stallman, tried to claim Linux as
>his own as "GNU/Linux". Guess what? Most everybody fell into
>that trap.
>
>Why would anybody remove contributor names from even
>`man` pages? Look at the new `man insmod`. Yes, the
>original is in `insmod.old`. How long will that last?
>
>Each of these little pieces of freedom are being chipped
>away, bit-by-bit.
>
>Wake up everybody. Get the POLICY out of the kernel.
>
>Cheers,
>Dick Johnson
>Penguin : Linux version 2.6.8 on an i686 machine (5537.79 Gimps).
>             Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.
>
-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/