Re: kernel module loading vs securelevel

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 04:04:59PM -0400, Matthew Mondor wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 13:58:19 -0400
> Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost> wrote:
> 
> >     2) Finish the asymmetric operation support in cryptodev and
> >        actually require modules to be signed.  This is basically a
> >        superset of #1 above that could get about as complicated as
> >        one wanted it to (ugh) but might be worthwhile if kept simple.
> 
> You seem to now agree with me that this could be a solution.  It
> indeed requires more work, but it also has advantages: not having to

Let me know when you've got the code ready for review.

Thor