lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> writes:

> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 11:16:12AM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org> writes:
>> > No, in the general case the system will do that once it fails to find a
>> > bootable OS on the drive.
>>
>> In the general case there will be a bootable OS on the drive.
>
> That's in no way a given.

You have it backwards. The conclusion here is that having a case where
a non-interactive install is possible is not a given.

Therefore inflicting the entire rest of the ecosystem with requirements
that only exist in the union of the requirements for non-interactive
installs and installs on a machine with an existing machine does not
make sense.

In situations where a non-interactive install is interesting. Aka
an empty boot disk it is not interesting to guard against.

In situations where interaction happens is where windows may already exists
and so spoofing windows is a design consideration and and a user
presence test does not break the design.

Eric


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-06 04:23    [W:0.251 / U:0.896 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site