Re: [RFC] Boot parameters and geometrical stability

2008-09-05 Thread Robert Millan
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 11:37:43PM +0200, phcoder wrote: > Robert Millan wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 02:31:10PM +0200, phcoder wrote: > >>> I assume you talk about GRUB loading itself; what kind of information > >>> would > >>> you pass from one GRUB to the other? > >> Boot device, > > >

Re: [RFC] Boot parameters and geometrical stability

2008-09-05 Thread Robert Millan
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 11:40:32PM +0200, phcoder wrote: > Robert Millan wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 08:49:14PM +0300, Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote: > >> Possibilites are there, but basically they are limited to something like: > >> > >> (ata0) (pci-X-Y-Z:ata0) (usb-X-Y:scsi0) (pci-X-Y-Z:scsi0) >

Re: [RFC] Boot parameters and geometrical stability

2008-09-04 Thread phcoder
Robert Millan wrote: > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 08:49:14PM +0300, Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote: >> Possibilites are there, but basically they are limited to something like: >> >> (ata0) (pci-X-Y-Z:ata0) (usb-X-Y:scsi0) (pci-X-Y-Z:scsi0) > > I think this is overkill, and doesn't really address the root o

Re: [RFC] Boot parameters and geometrical stability

2008-09-04 Thread phcoder
Robert Millan wrote: > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 02:31:10PM +0200, phcoder wrote: >>> I assume you talk about GRUB loading itself; what kind of information would >>> you pass from one GRUB to the other? >> Boot device, > > Multiboot already handles that (although it's not reliable; I don't > think

Re: [RFC] Boot parameters and geometrical stability

2008-09-04 Thread Robert Millan
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 08:49:14PM +0300, Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote: > > Possibilites are there, but basically they are limited to something like: > > (ata0) (pci-X-Y-Z:ata0) (usb-X-Y:scsi0) (pci-X-Y-Z:scsi0) I think this is overkill, and doesn't really address the root of the problem. The real s

Re: [RFC] Boot parameters and geometrical stability

2008-09-04 Thread Robert Millan
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 02:31:10PM +0200, phcoder wrote: > > > > I assume you talk about GRUB loading itself; what kind of information would > > you pass from one GRUB to the other? > Boot device, Multiboot already handles that (although it's not reliable; I don't think this feature should be us

Re: [RFC] Boot parameters and geometrical stability

2008-09-03 Thread phcoder
Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote: > phcoder wrote: >> Yes it is, but in my opinion price is too high (shame ubuntu uses this >> solution). It's somewhat similar to some solutions found in windows when >> for user convenience they open a big gate for the hackers (e.g. all >> users by default are administra

Re: [RFC] Boot parameters and geometrical stability

2008-09-03 Thread Vesa Jääskeläinen
phcoder wrote: > Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote: >> That is a valid point. >> >> Would you prefer to use hardware path to device or what you had in mind >> then? Because this is something that we can left for expert people. Most >> common problem is that user plugs in new drive to system and >> bios/hardw

Re: [RFC] Boot parameters and geometrical stability

2008-09-03 Thread phcoder
Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote: > That is a valid point. > > Would you prefer to use hardware path to device or what you had in mind > then? Because this is something that we can left for expert people. Most > common problem is that user plugs in new drive to system and > bios/hardware order gets changed

Re: [RFC] Boot parameters and geometrical stability

2008-09-03 Thread Vesa Jääskeläinen
phcoder wrote: > But consider a scenario when attacker can't overwrite the existing > harddrive but can plug new one. Then the attacker can prepare a > harddrive having a partition with the same UUID as our boot partition. > Then he plugs it and depnding on factors like order of interfaces, > devic

Re: [RFC] Boot parameters and geometrical stability

2008-09-03 Thread phcoder
Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote: > phcoder wrote: >> I was thinking about the scenario when ide drives are trusted but not >> USB or removable devices. Cryptographic checksums wouldn't bring much >> because if attacker can modify harddrive he can also modify GRUB to skip >> checksum check. > > Then you p

Re: [RFC] Boot parameters and geometrical stability

2008-09-03 Thread Vesa Jääskeläinen
phcoder wrote: > I was thinking about the scenario when ide drives are trusted but not > USB or removable devices. Cryptographic checksums wouldn't bring much > because if attacker can modify harddrive he can also modify GRUB to skip > checksum check. Then you password protect it :) Once that is

Re: [RFC] Boot parameters and geometrical stability

2008-09-03 Thread phcoder
Robert Millan wrote: > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 11:50:33AM +0200, phcoder wrote: >> Hello, all. >> Now when core image can be booted by multiple sources perhaps it would >> be a good idea to recieve some boot arguments in case boot method (e.g. >> multiboot) supports it. Probably the best way is to

Re: [RFC] Boot parameters and geometrical stability

2008-09-03 Thread Robert Millan
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 11:50:33AM +0200, phcoder wrote: > Hello, all. > Now when core image can be booted by multiple sources perhaps it would > be a good idea to recieve some boot arguments in case boot method (e.g. > multiboot) supports it. Probably the best way is to recieve pairs > which can