Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Jan 2013 04:40:13 +0000 | From | Matthew Garrett <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] Secure Boot: More controversial changes |
| |
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 06:05:56PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > These at the very least need some kind of CONFIG_WEAK_SECURE_BOOT > option or something like that.
Given Eric's views on the kexec patch (and given that there's no point in the hibernate one if kexec's available...), I'm not planning on pushing these until there's a plausible story for limiting kexec to signed images.
-- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
| |