On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 09:37:32PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 09:37:42PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Gotta say this capability name is confusing. Naming is > > > CAP_PRE_SECURE_BOOT or something along the lines might be a better > > > choice. When I just look at this name, I sure thought this > > > CAP_SECURE_FIRMWARE true means it is a secure boot capable firmware. > > > > Given there is nothing secure about it would it also be better to call it > > AUTHENTICATED_BOOT ? > > Well, there is the question of whether the sense is correct - you'll > only have this capability if you don't boot with any form of > authentication. CAP_KERNEL_ACCESS? I'm fine with whatever name we come up with, but I'd like to avoid bikeshedding it in every patch. Maybe we could work on the naming through comments to the patch that actually adds the capability? josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
