On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 13:18 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > You may as well bite the bullet on this one, and tie it together. Without > Secure Boot, by the time your code runs it's already too late. That's the > whole point of Secure Boot, after all.
It's already been made clear that nobody's interested in merging a solution that's specific to Secure Boot. I can add a command line option to set a default, and then anyone using an attesting bootloader (TPM/TXT) can verify the state. -- Matthew Garrett <matthew.garr...@nebula.com>
