Re: [PATCH 0/2] Secure Boot: More controversial changes

[Matthew Garrett]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 06:05:56PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> These at the very least need some kind of CONFIG_WEAK_SECURE_BOOT
> option or something like that.

Given Eric's views on the kexec patch (and given that there's no point 
in the hibernate one if kexec's available...), I'm not planning on 
pushing these until there's a plausible story for limiting kexec to 
signed images.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/