David Howells writes:
> Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> As far as I can tell, what's really going on here is that there's a
>> significant contingent here that wants to prevent Linux from
>> chainloading something that isn't Linux.
>
> You have completely the wrong end of the stick. No one has said
"Luck, Tony" writes:
>> - add a per-user mutex, and do the usleep inside of it, so that
>> anybody who tries to do a thousand threads will just be serialized by
>> the mutex.
>>
>> Note that the mutex needs to be per-user, because otherwise it will be
>> a DoS for the other users.
>
> I can try
Matthew Garrett writes:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 04:15:56PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>
>> at the same time we should export setup_data into /sys, so kexec could
>> append this pointer to command of
>> second kernel, just like kexec append acpi_rsdp.
>> That should address DavidW's concern.
>
> W
Matthew Garrett writes:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 07:36:32PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> For automated installs you don't have to satisfy me. Feel free to
>> deliver a lousy solution to your users. Just don't use your arbitrary
>> design decisi
Matthew Garrett writes:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 06:46:32PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 11:16:12AM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> >> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> >> > No,
Matthew Garrett writes:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 11:16:12AM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> > No, in the general case the system will do that once it fails to find a
>> > bootable OS on the drive.
>>
>> In the general
Matthew Garrett writes:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 11:24:17PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> "H. Peter Anvin" writes:
>> >
>> > That is a hugely different thing from needing a console.
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>> In the general cas
"H. Peter Anvin" writes:
> This is not a good thing to assume. A vendor could have an external
> button, for example.
Facts are always a good thing to assume.
The fact is the general case does not admit an install without user
interaction.
It makes a lot of sense to revisit the working assump
"H. Peter Anvin" writes:
> On 11/05/2012 07:14 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> In any case the notion that unattended install with no user interaction
>> on any uefi machine in any state is complete and total rubbish. It
>> can't be don
Jiri Kosina writes:
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>
>> > With secure boot enabled, then the kernel should refuse to let an
>> > unsigned kexec load new images, and kexec itself should refuse to
>> > load unsigned images.
>>
>> Yep, good in theory. Now that basically means reimplementi
Matthew Garrett writes:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 09:14:47AM +, James Bottomley wrote:
>
>> I've actually had more than enough experience with automated installs
>> over my career: they're either done by paying someone or using a
>> provisioning system. In either case, they provision a stati
Matthew Garrett writes:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 03:03:02PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> I don't want my system p0wned in the first place and I don't want to run
>> windows. Why should I trust Microsoft's signing key?
>
> There's no rea
Matthew Garrett writes:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 01:49:25AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> When the goal is to secure Linux I don't see how any of this helps.
>> Windows 8 compromises are already available so if we turn most of these
>> arguments around I am
Matthew Garrett writes:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 09:58:17PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 21:34:52 +
>> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > I think you've misunderstood. Blacklist updates are append only.
>>
>> I think you've misunderstood - thats a technical detail that merely
>> a
14 matches
Mail list logo
