On Monday, March 7, 2016, Matt Fleming <m...@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar, at 04:20:00PM, Peter Jones wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 11:57:33PM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > > > > > > > How big part of it is related to secure boot? Just > > > > changing Linux boot protocol doesn't need FSF involvement. Accepting > secure > > > > > > Patches currently use EFI stub to launch kernel but I think this is > done > > > simply to make code easier. We can continue to use the same load > > > protocol as before, just add image verification. > > > > No, they're doing it because that is the supported entry point for EFI > > in Linux. We do not want EFI machines using other entry points. It > > worked out terribly when we used to do this, and we don't want to start > > again. I've Cc'd Matt Fleming, the upstream kernel EFI maintainer, > > because I'm sure he's going to agree with me. > > Yeah, I agree with you. > > Having multiple entry points works out badly for everyone, since they > tend to bit rot, and few people test all of them equally. While we > continue to support legacy boot entry points upstream, we're not > actively adding support for new features to them for EFI. > > For boot loaders, the EFI handover protocol is definitely the > preferred method of booting Linux on EFI. > I'm ok with switching to EFI entry point for EFI platforms if plain 32-bit entry point stays available for platforms like coreboot. Can we agree on this? -- Regards Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
