Re: Allow automatic kernel taint on unsigned module load to be disabled

[Matthew Garrett]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Jessica Yu <jeyu@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.