[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130226194609.GB16640@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:46:09 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, keyrings@...ux-nfs.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Load keys from signed PE binaries
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 08:40:53PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> | No, there's no way to set the legacy boot as the default option.
>
> <https://plus.google.com/100479847213284361344/posts/QhmBpn5GNE9>
>
> So non-interactive booting of alternative operating systems is *not*
> supported. This is way more restrictive than any x86 UEFI device I've
> heard of (even in the face of a potential revocation of the boot
> loader by Microsoft).
It's supported as long as you use Google's bootloader rather than a
legacy one, but you're still stuck with either a 30-second boot delay or
hitting ctrl+d and there's no way to install your own keys without
disassembling the machine and physically disabling the write-protection
on the firmware. It's certainly more hostile than any UEFI Secure Boot
system I've found.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists