| 1 |
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:54:12 +0200 |
| 2 |
Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Am 15.06.2012 06:50, schrieb Duncan: |
| 5 |
> > Greg KH posted on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:28:10 -0700 as excerpted: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> >> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty. |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry |
| 10 |
> >> about Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues? |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft |
| 13 |
> >> to sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the non-technical side |
| 14 |
> >> that I've been wondering about. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > I've been following developments and wondering a bit about this |
| 17 |
> > myself. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > I had concluded that at least for x86/amd64, where MS is mandating |
| 20 |
> > a user controlled disable-signed-checking option, gentoo shouldn't |
| 21 |
> > have a problem. Other than updating the handbook to accommodate |
| 22 |
> > UEFI, presumably along with the grub2 stabilization, I believe |
| 23 |
> > we're fine as if a user can't figure out how to disable that option |
| 24 |
> > on their (x86/amd64) platform, they're hardly likely to be a good |
| 25 |
> > match for gentoo in any case. |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> As a user, I'd still like to have the chance of using Secure Boot with |
| 29 |
> Gentoo since it _really_ increases security. Even if it means I can no |
| 30 |
> longer build my own kernel. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
It doesn't. It's just a very long wooden fence; you just didn't find |
| 33 |
the hole yet. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Best regards, |
| 37 |
Michał Górny |
Archives