Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 09:33:31PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > The full implementation should trust keys that are trusted by the >> > platform, so it'd boot any kexec image you cared to sign. Or simply >> > patch this code out and rebuild and self-sign, or disable the code that >> > turns off the capability when in secure boot mode. I've no objection to >> > putting that behind an #ifdef. >> >> I will be happy to see a version of kexec that accepts signed images, >> allowing the functionality to work in your brave new world where >> everything must be signed. >> >> Until then I don't see a point in merging anything else. > > Fine. We'll just carry this one out of tree for now. It is your tree. I am disappointed to learn that you aren't enthusiastic about implementing verification of signatures for all code that goes into ring 0. Eric -- 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
