From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Killing UEFI Secure Boot
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:08:39 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <pan.2012.06.21.08.08.39@cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 4FE24BB7.3000904@gentoo.org
Richard Yao posted on Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:16:23 -0400 as excerpted:
> 3. How does getting a x86 system to boot differ from getting a MIPS
> system or ARM system to boot? Does it only work because the vendors made
> it work or is x86 fundamentally harder?
I can answer this one. x86 is harder at the bootloader stage, but in
turn easier, or perhaps simply different, at the kernel and kernel device
interface level.
Consider, most MIPS and ARM systems ship with a specific set of basic
devices, configured to use specific IO addresses, IRQs, etc, and that's
it, at least to get up and running (USB devices, etc, may be able to be
plugged in, but they're not normally needed for boot). If you've been
keeping up with the kernel (say via LWN, etc), this has been one of the
big deals with the ARM tree recently, as until now each "board" had its
own hard-coded kernel config directly in the tree, and it was getting
unmanageable. They're switching to "device tree", etc, allowing the boot
loader to feed the kernel a file with this information at boot time, thus
allowing a whole bunch of different boards to boot off the same shipped
kernel, while at the same time getting the explosion of individual board
files out of the kernel tree. This is a BIG deal on ARM and similar
embedded archs, but doesn't affect x86 (either 32-bit or 64-bit) at all.
Meanwhile, on x86, the system must be prepared for end-user switch-out of
pretty much everything. memory, storage (consider floppy, hard drive,
optical disk either direct or el-torito, USB stick, etc, all bootable and
all end-user changable!), even quantity and speed of CPUs, and the
firmware BIOS (or replacement) must cope with that and be able to boot
off it. Even back in the 386 era when everything was jumper-configured,
users could still change pretty much everything out, other than the mobo
itself. Now days, it's even MORE complex, as most of these devices can
be configured in dozens or hundreds of mode combinations via "plug-n-
pray", and they often don't /have/ a default -- they **MUST** be so
configured in ordered to be operable for the intended use. Sure, the
BIOS CAN leave some of it for the kernel to do, but other bits, not so
much, as otherwise, how does the kernel even get loaded -- the BIOS must
pick one of the many boot options, configure it (as well as the CPU and
the system between storage and the CPU, storage chipset, memory, etc) at
least well enough to read in the boot loader and/or kernel. None of
that's necessary on ARM, etc, because (pretty much) everything there's a
totally arbitrary-as-shipped config, nothing to dynamically negotiate and
get working before the kernel or secondary bootloader (after the BIOS)
can even work!
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-21 8:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-19 22:11 [gentoo-dev] Killing UEFI Secure Boot Richard Yao
2012-06-20 0:22 ` Rich Freeman
2012-06-20 1:10 ` Richard Yao
2012-06-20 1:25 ` Rich Freeman
2012-06-20 1:33 ` Richard Yao
2012-06-20 1:51 ` Rich Freeman
2012-06-20 3:27 ` Peter Stuge
[not found] ` <1a28c6af40914cf5b6b5559bd0195a1b@HUBCAS1.cs.stonybrook.edu>
2012-06-20 22:16 ` Richard Yao
2012-06-21 8:08 ` Duncan [this message]
2012-06-21 9:33 ` [gentoo-dev] " Richard Yao
2012-06-21 15:00 ` Ian Stakenvicius
2012-06-21 15:05 ` Richard Yao
2012-06-21 18:55 ` Roy Bamford
2012-06-21 19:10 ` Peter Stuge
2012-06-21 22:51 ` Rich Freeman
[not found] ` <2279549d74ab41acb17b7207aa1478f6@HUBCAS2.cs.stonybrook.edu>
2012-06-22 0:24 ` Richard Yao
2012-06-22 13:02 ` Ian Stakenvicius
2012-06-22 5:02 ` Duncan
2012-06-22 5:10 ` Richard Yao
2012-06-22 5:30 ` Richard Yao
2012-06-20 20:08 ` [gentoo-dev] " Greg KH
2012-06-20 20:13 ` Richard Yao
2012-06-20 20:20 ` Greg KH
2012-06-20 20:35 ` Richard Yao
2012-06-20 21:09 ` Greg KH
[not found] ` <01ed9c34e80e4f66b9f5c9fbcdede39e@HUBCAS2.cs.stonybrook.edu>
2012-06-20 21:56 ` Richard Yao
2012-06-20 22:27 ` Greg KH
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=pan.2012.06.21.08.08.39@cox.net \
--to=1i5t5.duncan@cox.net \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox