Description of problem: It seems this kernel version has broken cbq support... Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Kernel version: 2.6.22.4-65.fc7 How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. # /sbin/cbq start FATAL: Error inserting sch_cbq (/lib/modules/2.6.22.4-65.fc7/kernel/net/sched/sch_cbq.ko): Key was rejected by service 2. or: # /sbin/modprobe sch_cbq FATAL: Error inserting sch_cbq (/lib/modules/2.6.22.4-65.fc7/kernel/net/sched/sch_cbq.ko): Key was rejected by service Actual results: "Key was rejected by service" Expected results: no error Additional info: - Info in logs: "Module signature verification failed" - My CPU: VIA Esther C7 - It seems it is working fine for x86_64
Hello, I upgraded the kernel yesterday to 2.6.22.5-76.fc7 but as it seems I have still tha same problem: # /sbin/modprobe sch-cbq FATAL: Error inserting sch_cbq (/lib/modules/2.6.22.5-76.fc7/kernel/net/sched/sch_cbq.ko): Key was rejected by service... (In reply to comment #0) > Description of problem: > > It seems this kernel version has broken cbq support... > > Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): > > Kernel version: 2.6.22.4-65.fc7 > > How reproducible: > > > Steps to Reproduce: > 1. > # /sbin/cbq start > FATAL: Error inserting sch_cbq > (/lib/modules/2.6.22.4-65.fc7/kernel/net/sched/sch_cbq.ko): Key was rejected by > service > > 2. or: > # /sbin/modprobe sch_cbq > FATAL: Error inserting sch_cbq > (/lib/modules/2.6.22.4-65.fc7/kernel/net/sched/sch_cbq.ko): Key was rejected by > service > > Actual results: > "Key was rejected by service" > > Expected results: > no error > > Additional info: > - Info in logs: "Module signature verification failed" > - My CPU: VIA Esther C7 > - It seems it is working fine for x86_64
As it seems my box has some problem and somehow I cannot load any additional module, however they are loaded fine during the startup process... I will investigate why this happened. But this is definetely not CBQ problem. Jan
This happens when the padlock-sha module is loaded. Marking this as a dup of the newer bug since that one has more information... *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 295581 ***