Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: UEFI secure boot and Gentoo
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:02:09
Message-Id: pan.2012.06.15.05.00.54@cox.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] UEFI secure boot and Gentoo by Arun Raghavan
Arun Raghavan posted on Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:15:28 +0530 as excerpted:

> I guess we're in an especially bad position since everybody builds their > own bootloader. Is there /any/ viable solution that allows people to > continue doing this short of distributing a first-stage bootloader blob?
As I said in my first reply, for x86/amd64 at least, MS is mandating a user-unlock option. That would leave the bootloader fully unsigned, but it would let users keep building their own. But for arm, last I read MS is mandating no-user-unlock. There, a signed blob first-stage bootloader is likely to be mandatory, tho in reality that platform has always lacked the user-end base standard support and flexibility of x86, so it's not like they're losing it. But if the entire market moves toward arm as some are predicting... -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman