Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Richard Yao <ryao@g.o>
To: "gentoo-dev@l.g.o" <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Killing UEFI Secure Boot
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:59:00
Message-Id: 4FE2470C.8000007@gentoo.org
1 On 06/20/2012 05:09 PM, Greg KH wrote:
2 >> Technical hurdles will likely prevent this unless we an get vendors to
3 >> release documentation. Is there any chance you could contact people at
4 >> Intel requesting programming documentation on their memory controller
5 >> and anything else we would need to write a small OS that we could flash
6 >> in place of UEFI?
7 >
8 > Again, see the response from Peter about what is needed here. That
9 > "anything else" is not trivial.
10 >
11 > But feel free to prove me wrong, I love it when that happens :)
12 >
13 > greg k-h
14 >
15
16 You must not have read this, where I said that I realized that this is
17 infeasible:
18
19 On 06/20/2012 04:13 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
20 >> Stop right there. That's just not going to happen, sorry. You aren't
21 >> going to be able to get a user to replace their BIOS, nor should you
22 >> ever want to. You are not going to be able to keep up with the
23 >> hundreds, if not thousands, of different motherboards being introduced
24 >> every month, in order to just get rid of the secure boot option.
25 >
26 > OpenWRT does that with routers and Cyanogenmod does that with phones. It
27 > seems reason for us to offer it as an option to users. With that said,
28 > this probably won't happen. One of the Core Boot developers informed me
29 > of what is involved in setting up the address space and it is infeasible
30 > for us to do.
31
32 From what I can tell, the Core Boot developers could use that
33 documentation. You yourself said "If there's anything that anyone is
34 thinking I should be doing but seem not to be, please let me know.". Do
35 you have any intention of acting on that?

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Killing UEFI Secure Boot Greg KH <gregkh@g.o>