On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 12:49 PM Solomon Peachy <pizza@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 01:41:27PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > Note: memtest86+ actually had an upstream release recently after a *very* > > long hiatus, so I guess it's no longer dead. But I agree memtest86+ should > > be dropped, since it's incompatible with UEFI and surely not what we want > > people to try using. > > Yes and no -- having it available on the fedora installer media is quite > useful, and since that's going to have to support dual BIOS/UEFI > booting, there's not really any downside. The same binary can't support both firmware types. As far as I know, only the proprietary version offers a UEFI binary. And long ago the plan for the free version was not to have dual support, but to eventually deprecate the BIOS tester and only offer a UEFI binary. But another difficulty even if there will be a free UEFI memtest86+ is that it would need to be signed for UEFI Secure Boot, same as shim and the kernel (and kernel modules). Seems like its own burden. Does anyone know if Microsoft has a signed UEFI memory tester? I don't exactly like the idea of recommending something outside our purview, and also not being available within Fedora, but a signed memory tester is better than one not signed. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
