| 1 |
Am Dienstag, 15. August 2017, 22:02:19 CEST schrieb Mike Gilbert: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> I can't recall if I did this myself in a moment of security induced |
| 5 |
> >> inspiration. I doubt I did. So how did this happen? What is |
| 6 |
> >> responsible for mounting this fs? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > It looks like this never did turn into a news item: |
| 9 |
> > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/35304b0db4de9e06fea32227537 |
| 10 |
> > 9fa81 |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > You can remount it as rw if your tools don't do it automatically. It |
| 13 |
> > might not hurt to file a bug if one doesn't already exist for the tool |
| 14 |
> > that isn't remounting it. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Please bother efibootmgr upstream about it, or bother the OpenRC |
| 17 |
> maintainer who decided to break things. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I'm somewhat confused about the whole thing. Wasn't the core problem of |
| 20 |
accidentally bricking devices solved by the kernel by making |
| 21 |
a subset of EFI variables immutable? (Actaully, I found the commit, which |
| 22 |
says that variables ar immutable by default and only whitelisted variables get |
| 23 |
to be mutable, see https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/ |
| 24 |
ed8b0de5a33d) Is there really that much value in additionally mounting |
| 25 |
efivars RO? (Honestly curious! Was the change maybe not backported to older |
| 26 |
kernels? Or can some other damage be done that I'm not aware of?) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Marc Joliet |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
"People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we |
| 32 |
don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup |
Archives