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
1 Arun Raghavan posted on Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:15:28 +0530 as excerpted:
2
3 > I guess we're in an especially bad position since everybody builds their
4 > own bootloader. Is there /any/ viable solution that allows people to
5 > continue doing this short of distributing a first-stage bootloader blob?
6
7 As I said in my first reply, for x86/amd64 at least, MS is mandating a
8 user-unlock option. That would leave the bootloader fully unsigned, but
9 it would let users keep building their own.
10
11 But for arm, last I read MS is mandating no-user-unlock. There, a signed
12 blob first-stage bootloader is likely to be mandatory, tho in reality
13 that platform has always lacked the user-end base standard support and
14 flexibility of x86, so it's not like they're losing it. But if the
15 entire market moves toward arm as some are predicting...
16
17 --
18 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
19 "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
20 and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman