Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753041Ab2KFDgq (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:36:46 -0500 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:40708 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752716Ab2KFDgn (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:36:43 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Matthew Garrett Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , James Bottomley , Pavel Machek , Chris Friesen , Eric Paris , Jiri Kosina , Oliver Neukum , Alan Cox , Josh Boyer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org References: <20121104042802.GA11295@srcf.ucam.org> <1352020487.2427.5.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20121104135251.GA17894@srcf.ucam.org> <87d2zsmv8r.fsf@xmission.com> <509766DB.9090906@zytor.com> <87625kh5r2.fsf@xmission.com> <20121105123858.GB4374@srcf.ucam.org> <87sj8nc137.fsf@xmission.com> <20121105202557.GA16076@srcf.ucam.org> <87hap3zbw7.fsf@xmission.com> <20121106031219.GB24235@srcf.ucam.org> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 19:36:32 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20121106031219.GB24235@srcf.ucam.org> (Matthew Garrett's message of "Tue, 6 Nov 2012 03:12:19 +0000") Message-ID: <87fw4nv1vj.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1+VuCtRnOFLmgjFqhN3uzCBvaJ/rUku65w= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 98.207.153.68 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -3.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa01 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_XMDrugObfuBody_08 obfuscated drug references X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa01 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Matthew Garrett X-Spam-Relay-Country: Subject: Re: [RFC] Second attempt at kernel secure boot support X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sun, 08 Jan 2012 03:05:19 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1742 Lines: 40 Matthew Garrett writes: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:46:32PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Matthew Garrett writes: >> >> > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 11:16:12AM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Matthew Garrett 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/