Secure boot and packaging third-party kernel modules

[David Sommerseth]

On 29/05/15 14:54, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:40 AM, David Sommerseth <davids at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 28/05/15 17:45, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:26 AM, David Sommerseth <davids at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I've started poking into packaging the mhvtl project for Fedora and
>>>> EPEL.  This package also contains a kernel module, which normally works
>>>> fine - until you hit Secure Boot.
>>>>
>>>> So I was wondering how to handle this the best way.  AFAIK, there are
>>>> currently no plans to get the mhvtl.ko kernel module into the upstream
>>>> kernel.
>>>
>>> Where can I read more information on this project, and why that might be?
>>
>> Duh!  I'm so into this I forget to add better project info ...
>>
>> <https://sites.google.com/site/linuxvtl2/>
> 
> Sorry, I should have been more explicit in my question.  I found the
> site by googling of course, but I was curious if you had pointers to
> reasoning/discussion around why the kernel module won't be pushed
> upstream.

I have asked the mhvtl developer about this, still awaiting an answer.
I would generally prefer seeing it upstream kernel, but until then I'd
like to have a solution in place as well.

>>> It is worth noting that Fedora does not allow packages other than the
>>> kernel to ship kernel modules.
>>
>> Oh, I was not aware of that.  But compiling a kernel module "on-the-fly"
>> is acceptable for Fedora?
> 
> Kinda.  Packages that do that exist.  We know they exist.  We assume
> the people maintaining them are going to be polite and deal with
> issues.

Fair enough!


--
kind regards,

David Sommerseth