[meta-intel] [PATCH RFC 0/4] Super simple secure boot implementation not requiring combo app

2017-07-14 Thread California Sullivan
I'm not sure why I never tried just signing the kernel and systemd-boot, but it works. If either one is not signed, it causes gives a security violation error. A con of this implementation is that unlike the combo app, we don't inherently validate the initrd. In the future we could require that an

Re: [meta-intel] [PATCH RFC 0/4] Super simple secure boot implementation not requiring combo app

2017-07-14 Thread Cal Sullivan
+ Patrick (mistyped email address). --- Cal On 07/14/2017 07:11 PM, California Sullivan wrote: I'm not sure why I never tried just signing the kernel and systemd-boot, but it works. If either one is not signed, it causes gives a security violation error. A con of this implementation is that un

Re: [meta-intel] [PATCH RFC 0/4] Super simple secure boot implementation not requiring combo app

2017-07-16 Thread Patrick Ohly
On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 19:11 -0700, California Sullivan wrote: > I'm not sure why I never tried just signing the kernel and systemd-boot, > but it works. If either one is not signed, it causes gives a security > violation error. > > A con of this implementation is that unlike the combo app, we don'

Re: [meta-intel] [PATCH RFC 0/4] Super simple secure boot implementation not requiring combo app

2017-07-18 Thread Cal Sullivan
On 07/16/2017 11:26 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote: On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 19:11 -0700, California Sullivan wrote: I'm not sure why I never tried just signing the kernel and systemd-boot, but it works. If either one is not signed, it causes gives a security violation error. A con of this implementatio

Re: [meta-intel] [PATCH RFC 0/4] Super simple secure boot implementation not requiring combo app

2017-07-18 Thread Patrick Ohly
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 13:32 -0700, Cal Sullivan wrote: > > On 07/16/2017 11:26 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 19:11 -0700, California Sullivan wrote: > >> I'm not sure why I never tried just signing the kernel and systemd-boot, > >> but it works. If either one is not signed, it

Re: [meta-intel] [PATCH RFC 0/4] Super simple secure boot implementation not requiring combo app

2017-07-18 Thread Cal Sullivan
On 07/18/2017 01:58 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote: On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 13:32 -0700, Cal Sullivan wrote: On 07/16/2017 11:26 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote: On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 19:11 -0700, California Sullivan wrote: I'm not sure why I never tried just signing the kernel and systemd-boot, but it works.

Re: [meta-intel] [PATCH RFC 0/4] Super simple secure boot implementation not requiring combo app

2017-07-18 Thread Patrick Ohly
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 15:06 -0700, Cal Sullivan wrote: > > On 07/18/2017 01:58 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 13:32 -0700, Cal Sullivan wrote: > >> On 07/16/2017 11:26 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote: > >>> On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 19:11 -0700, California Sullivan wrote: > I'm not sure