On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 7:39 PM Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:08 PM Jared Dominguez <jaredz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The security of UEFI systems is immeasurably better. Standardized firmware updates, support for modern secure TPMs, OS protection from firmware (SMM mitigations), HTTP(S) boot support, largely shared and open sourced firmware codebases that aren't a pile of assembly code, and a lot of other features are UEFI-only.
When users have a suboptimal experience by default, it makes Fedora
look bad. We can't have security concerns overriding all other
concerns. But it's really pernicious to simultaneously say security is
important, but we're also not going to sign proprietary drivers. This
highly incentivizes the user to disable Secure Boot because that's so
much easier than users signing kernel modules and enrolling keys with
the firmware, and therefore makes the user *less safe*.
Understandable concern. Secure Boot is still a different topic from UEFI (and many of the features provided by UEFI, including those impacting security), and UEFI can be utilized even without Secure Boot. Nonetheless, several folks have been exploring options to be able to support Nvidia's driver in Fedora.
>> And the amount of resistance to improving UEFI experience for hardware
>> is amazingly awful. The workstation working group has tried to figure
>> out ways to improve the experience, only to be simultaneously stymied
>> by the UEFI firmware management tools and unwillingness by anyone
>> involved to even consider that we should make this better.
>
>
> Which tools? What specific efforts have been stymied? How is any of this specific to UEFI versus trying to deal with things that aren't supported by someone?
Namely, Fedora signing NVIDIA's proprietary driver.
Apple and Microsoft signing NVIDIA's proprietary driver doesn't at all
indicate Apple and Microsoft trust the driver itself. It is trusting
the providence of the blob, in order to achieve an overall safer
ecosystem for their users.
Apple and Microsoft are held to different license terms in their operating systems than we are.
We either want users with NVIDIA hardware to be inside the Secure Boot
fold or we don't. I want them in the fold *despite* the driver that
needs signing is proprietary. That's a better user experience across
the board, including the security messaging is made consistent. The
existing policy serves no good at all and is double talk. If we really
care about security more than ideological worry, we'd sign the driver.
--
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Jared Dominguez (he/him)
Software Engineering Manager
New Platform Technologies Enablement teamRHEL Workstation Engineering
_______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
