On 07/08/2014 10:19 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
On 2014-07-07, Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Note that Microsoft's current policy may not allow unrestricted
virtualization (KVM or Virtualbox—does not matter) because that "permits
launch of another operating system instance after execution of
unauthenticated code"—the wording is rather unclear. If Microsoft
clarifies that this is forbidden, a future Fedora update will remove
this functionality, so you will be forced to disable Secure Boot at this
point anyway if you want to continue to use virtualization.
Could you elaborate more what "unauthenticated code" is in this case?
I think it's code that is not cryptographically tied (indirectly) to one
of the Secure Boot trust roots.
However, I don't really know what Microsoft means. It's conceivable
that they assume we sign all of user space (not just for installation
purposes), and they might have a wrong idea about what we can implement
in our system.
Is
it a userspace tool for controlling in-kernel virtualization (e.g. qemu
in case of KVM)? Because KVM as a kernel module is signed.
It's unclear. One possible interpretation is that virtualization acts
as a barrier because it does not provide access to "real" ring 0 on the
host. It sounds reasonable, but it doesn't really match Microsoft's
wording I quoted above (from a public blog post).
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
