| 1 |
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 04:13:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06/20/2012 04:08 PM, Greg KH wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that |
| 5 |
> >> UEFI Secure Boot will have on us. As far as I know, Secure Boot is |
| 6 |
> >> implemented in the UEFI firmware and if we replace the firmware, |
| 7 |
> >> Secure Boot issues disappear. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Stop right there. That's just not going to happen, sorry. You aren't |
| 10 |
> > going to be able to get a user to replace their BIOS, nor should you |
| 11 |
> > ever want to. You are not going to be able to keep up with the |
| 12 |
> > hundreds, if not thousands, of different motherboards being introduced |
| 13 |
> > every month, in order to just get rid of the secure boot option. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> OpenWRT does that with routers and Cyanogenmod does that with phones. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
No, neither of them replaces the BIOS in their machines with an |
| 18 |
opensource version. There is no BIOS in those platforms, it's just |
| 19 |
uboot or fastboot, the PC-like ecosystem is so vastly different it's |
| 20 |
laughable. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> It seems reason for us to offer it as an option to users. With that |
| 23 |
> said, this probably won't happen. One of the Core Boot developers |
| 24 |
> informed me of what is involved in setting up the address space and it |
| 25 |
> is infeasible for us to do. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
And I agree with that developer. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Don't get "replace all of userspace and the kernel" confused with |
| 30 |
"replace the UEFI bios". You do realize that the UEFI bios is at least |
| 31 |
double the size of the Linux kernel, with custom device drivers and tons |
| 32 |
of other stuff in there? Good luck replacing that... |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> > And I want secure boot on my machines, with a key I trust, don't you? |
| 35 |
> > If not, why not? I know lots of others that also want this, why deny |
| 36 |
> > them the ability to run Gentoo on their hardware? |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> To be clear, I was not talking about taking away options from users. I |
| 39 |
> was talking about giving them options. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
You are taking secure boot out of their systems, that sounds like taking |
| 42 |
away an option to me :) |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Anyway, it's all a moot point, as has been explained already, sorry. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
greg k-h |
Archives