On 22.01.2014 00:29, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:29:03PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder'
> Serbinenko wrote:
>> This part is from RH "Secureboot" patch. Few things are right about that
>> patch. Whatever signature verifications would need to be integrated with
>> signatures
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:29:03PM +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko
wrote:
> This part is from RH "Secureboot" patch. Few things are right about that
> patch. Whatever signature verifications would need to be integrated with
> signatures framework (I have some scratch in phcoder/file_t
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 04:30:13PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Is it relevant for arm64-efi?
>
> Not at the moment - it still requires architecture-specific knowledge of
> the boot protocol, and I don't think that's well-defined for arm64-efi
> yet.
Depends which bit of the boot protocol y
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 20:24 +0400, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> В Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:28:08 +0100
> Lubomir Rintel пишет:
>
> >
> > module = {
> > + name = linuxefi;
> > + efi = loader/i386/efi/linux.c;
> > + efi = lib/cmdline.c;
> > + enable = i386_efi;
> > + enable = x86_64_efi;
> > +};
>
On 21.01.2014 17:24, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> В Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:28:08 +0100
> Lubomir Rintel пишет:
>
>>
>> module = {
>> + name = linuxefi;
>> + efi = loader/i386/efi/linux.c;
>> + efi = lib/cmdline.c;
>> + enable = i386_efi;
>> + enable = x86_64_efi;
>> +};
>> +
>
> Is it relevant
В Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:28:08 +0100
Lubomir Rintel пишет:
>
> module = {
> + name = linuxefi;
> + efi = loader/i386/efi/linux.c;
> + efi = lib/cmdline.c;
> + enable = i386_efi;
> + enable = x86_64_efi;
> +};
> +
Is it relevant for arm64-efi?
> +static grub_err_t
> +grub_cmd_linux (grub_c
On Jan 21, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 08:46:48PM -0500, SevenBits wrote:
>> On Monday, January 20, 2014, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
>>> From: Matthew Garrett
>>>
>>> This adds linuxefi module that provides a way to load Linux kernel
>>> and RAM disk image via EF
On 21.01.2014 14:43, Colin Watson wrote:
> I would be inclined to say that linuxefi should be essentially an
> internal implementation detail, and that linux should forward to
> linuxefi if appropriate.
Current 32-bit protocol is very useful on platforms like coreboot.
Removing its use in GRUB com
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 08:46:48PM -0500, SevenBits wrote:
> On Monday, January 20, 2014, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> > From: Matthew Garrett
> >
> > This adds linuxefi module that provides a way to load Linux kernel
> > and RAM disk image via EFI services with linuxefi and initrdefi
> > commands, an
On Monday, January 20, 2014, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> From: Matthew Garrett
>
> This adds linuxefi module that provides a way to load Linux kernel and RAM
> disk
> image via EFI services with linuxefi and initrdefi commands, analogous to
> linux
> and initrd commands.
Why? What's wrong with the
From: Matthew Garrett
This adds linuxefi module that provides a way to load Linux kernel and RAM disk
image via EFI services with linuxefi and initrdefi commands, analogous to linux
and initrd commands.
[lkund...@v3.sk: Clarify the commit message]
[lkund...@v3.sk: Add Changelog]
---
Hi,
this is
11 matches
Mail list logo