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
+ 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
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'
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
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
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.
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