On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:29:45AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 09/10/2013 11:26 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 14:23 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >>> That's why modern systems require signed firmware updates. > >> > >> Linux doesn't. Is someone working on adding signature support to the > >> runtime firmware loader? > > > > It'd be simple to do so, but so far the model appears to be that devices > > that expect signed firmware enforce that themselves. > > > > Most devices do absolutely no verification on the firmware, and simply > trust the driver. > > So signing firmware is probably critical.
How are you going to "validate" that the firmware is correct, given that it's just a "blob" living in the linux-firmware tree. If you sign it, what is that saying? I'm with Matthew here, any device that needs/wants this, has their own built-in checking, nothing the kernel should do here. Especially given that no other os does this :) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
