Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: UEFI secure boot and Gentoo

[Florian Philipp <lists@binarywings.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1628 bytes --]

Am 15.06.2012 06:50, schrieb Duncan:
> Greg KH posted on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:28:10 -0700 as excerpted:
> 
>> So, anyone been thinking about this?  I have, and it's not pretty.
>>
>> Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about
>> Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues?
>>
>> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft to
>> sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the non-technical side that
>> I've been wondering about.
> 
> I've been following developments and wondering a bit about this myself.
> 
> I had concluded that at least for x86/amd64, where MS is mandating a user 
> controlled disable-signed-checking option, gentoo shouldn't have a 
> problem.  Other than updating the handbook to accommodate UEFI, 
> presumably along with the grub2 stabilization, I believe we're fine as if 
> a user can't figure out how to disable that option on their (x86/amd64) 
> platform, they're hardly likely to be a good match for gentoo in any case.
> 

As a user, I'd still like to have the chance of using Secure Boot with
Gentoo since it _really_ increases security. Even if it means I can no
longer build my own kernel.

> ARM and etc could be more problematic since MS is mandating no-unlock 
> there, last I read.  I have no clue how they can get away with that anti-
> trust-wise, but anyway...  But I honestly don't know enough about other 
> than x86/amd64 platforms to worry about it, personally.
> 

I guess anti-trust is not an issue since MS is not even close to having
a monopoly in ARM.

Regards,
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]