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 06:46:32PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I deal with customers who perform non-interactive installs. The fact
> that you don't care about that use case is entirely irrelevant to me,
> because you're not the person that I am obliged to satisfy.

I have spent what feels like half my life doing automatic installs. I
care a lot and I understand the requirements. I also see through
misstatements about reality used to justify stupid design decisions.

For automated installs you don't have to satisfy me. Feel free to
deliver a lousy solution to your users. Just don't use your arbitrary
design decisions to justify your kernel patches.

Non-interactive installs do not justify removing all trust from the root
user of a system, disabling suspend to disk and completely rewriting
kexec for the simple expedient removing a couple of lines of code from
your bootloader.

Eric


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-06 05:23    [W:0.129 / U:0.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site