Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Greg KH <gregkh@g.o>
To: Richard Yao <ryao@g.o>
Cc: "gentoo-dev@l.g.o" <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>, Greg KH <gregkh@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Killing UEFI Secure Boot
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:28:47
Message-Id: 20120620222757.GA2717@kroah.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Killing UEFI Secure Boot by Richard Yao
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 05:56:28PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 04:13 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > >> Stop right there. That's just not going to happen, sorry. You aren't > >> going to be able to get a user to replace their BIOS, nor should you > >> ever want to. You are not going to be able to keep up with the > >> hundreds, if not thousands, of different motherboards being introduced > >> every month, in order to just get rid of the secure boot option. > > > > OpenWRT does that with routers and Cyanogenmod does that with phones. It > > seems reason for us to offer it as an option to users. With that said, > > this probably won't happen. One of the Core Boot developers informed me > > of what is involved in setting up the address space and it is infeasible > > for us to do. > > From what I can tell, the Core Boot developers could use that > documentation. You yourself said "If there's anything that anyone is > thinking I should be doing but seem not to be, please let me know.". Do > you have any intention of acting on that?a
Getting documentation from Intel without an NDA is not something that it is possible for me to do, sorry. The coreboot developers have much better contacts in this area (hint, I have none.) greg k-h