Moin, Am 15.05.2018 um 11:41 schrieb Steve McIntyre: > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 04:16:22AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:46:00AM +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote: >>> On Tue, 15 May 2018 03:32:26 +0100 Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> >>> wrote: >>>>>> The second point (have DAK accept ...) is part of step 7, yes. It >>>>>> seems to have been implemented now. >>>>> >>>>> Then, remaining blocker is only template for GRUB2? >>>> >>>> For testing purposes, I think so. I don't know whether GRUB implements >>>> the policy we want at the moment.
@benh: you meat to *only* boot signed stuff and not fall back to disabling SB before booting an unsigned kernel? That should be addressed by <https://salsa.debian.org/pmhahn/grub/commit/fe06193ff5a36ee6aa6a6cab12f4651b6290d91b> >>> Is there any issue to apply such policy to grub2 package, or just not >>> discussed yet? >> >> Either nobody's tried to discuss it with me yet or I missed the email. >> Feel free to (preferably in the form of a patch I can review :-) ). > > At / shortly after the sprint, Philipp (in CC) had patches basically > ready for grub2, but he seems to have gone quiet. <prod> I was busy working on our release, which took all my time. And I'm not subscribed to debian-project. My last work it at <https://salsa.debian.org/pmhahn/grub/tree/signing>. In the week after the sprint I worked on GRUB2 and got it so far to have the signed amd64 package - so at the time of writing the sprint report GRUB2 was already ready. I haven't yet found time to setup an UEFI-SB test environment to check that everything works. I haven't yet tested any other architecture != amd64. @Colin: Please have a look at said repository above. What I'm currently unsure about is that amd64 has those ia32 packages as well - it should work but also untested. My reading is that those are required for dual booting? Philipp
