I would like do stop signing i386 kernels.
- IA32 UEFI is basically non existent outside of the Apple world and
maybe some embedded stuff.
- i386 lacks many of the microarchitectural fixes that creeped in during
the last years. So those kernels are unsuitable for real world usage
of processors released in the last ten years.
Install base of a IA32 EFI capable boot chain, as possible to see by
popcon (via grub-efi-ia32-signed): 178
Install base of a X64 EFI capable boot chain (via
grub-efi-amd64-signed): 71743
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 06:01:17PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:(...)
I would like do stop signing i386 kernels.
- IA32 UEFI is basically non existent outside of the Apple world and
maybe some embedded stuff.
there's no point in signing i386 grub and fwupd or
having a signed shim if we don't have a signed kernel.
Hello,
On 06/12/2023 at 22:09, Steve McIntyre wrote:
(...)
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 06:01:17PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
I would like do stop signing i386 kernels.
- IA32 UEFI is basically non existent outside of the Apple world and
maybe some embedded stuff.
there's no point in signing i386 grub and fwupd or
having a signed shim if we don't have a signed kernel.
Over the years I have seen a number of netbook or tablet-style PCs with >32-bit UEFI firmware and a 64-bit capable CPU, so they could boot with >grub-efi-ia32 and an amd64 kernel. I do not remember if they supported secure >boot though.
We should publicise this for users and be consistent for all the EFI
signed binaries - there's no point in signing i386 grub and fwupd or
having a signed shim if we don't have a signed kernel.
Agreed?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 546 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 17:48:45 |
Calls: | 10,389 |
Files: | 14,061 |
Messages: | 6,416,953 |