Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@...>
Subject: Re: UEFI secure boot and Gentoo
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:00:54 +0000 (UTC)
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



References:
UEFI secure boot and Gentoo
-- Greg KH
Re: UEFI secure boot and Gentoo
-- Arun Raghavan
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: UEFI secure boot and Gentoo
Next by thread:
Re: UEFI secure boot and Gentoo
Previous by date:
Re: UEFI secure boot and Gentoo
Next by date:
Re: Re: UEFI secure boot and Gentoo


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.