From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1KaxDh-0000uN-Hs for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:36:45 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KaxDg-0000rR-3j for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:36:44 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KaxDe-0000na-Bu for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:36:43 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40466 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KaxDe-0000nP-6p for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:36:42 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.159]:18638) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KaxDd-0003Bb-Re for grub-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:36:42 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so245553fgb.30 for ; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 11:36:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dIUbmmwz1WOz189PjUGrhypVx4X4IM+gX0nw9ERaT6k=; b=i7mUHZMYyiI7ICy7CidoJaAhDaFHXr3fYNys8K3IVesSQiVaZ39+5dY5tLK3Koe9mW y6e5E/dNRbe6NQlfLMGvMQ6uqnN4vyv5TXNOhlKZHV9fgyzDFUpCKKtnOfYPXmxtxUqI r7yxlEtVvq3BpOSuTOit2NFsh19ZUlEW87cEY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=QG2E5cjbe45K5eXXS4E7yztH/WNYh2HRvqYEXTIH44oiZ+lhIFfdLSCTcDTmNcFugQ 6pVXUC89HMMA30mPtoDQTQAbZ1YB8BA6ia8zW4cB2waOgBeIHDpk72gKudyPWrBKelr6 AxuEZVSQQkn5dJhleQrKVr89erBWDNlhLVgq0= Received: by 10.86.95.20 with SMTP id s20mr6912239fgb.65.1220467000024; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 11:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.15? ( [83.77.145.184]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l12sm10246682fgb.6.2008.09.03.11.36.37 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 03 Sep 2008 11:36:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48BED931.2010208@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:36:33 +0200 From: phcoder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The development of GRUB 2 References: <48BE5DE9.4090302@gmail.com> <20080903103654.GC29762@thorin> <48BE838E.9090204@gmail.com> <48BEC078.7030006@nic.fi> <48BEC6AD.5040305@gmail.com> <48BECE1A.1070406@nic.fi> In-Reply-To: <48BECE1A.1070406@nic.fi> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Subject: Re: [RFC] Boot parameters and geometrical stability X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:36:44 -0000 Vesa Jääskeläinen wrote: > That is a valid point. > > Would you prefer to use hardware path to device or what you had in mind > then? Because this is something that we can left for expert people. Most > common problem is that user plugs in new drive to system and > bios/hardware order gets changed or something like that, and that > renders system unbootable. UUID is perfect solution for that case. > Yes it is, but in my opinion price is too high (shame ubuntu uses this solution). It's somewhat similar to some solutions found in windows when for user convenience they open a big gate for the hackers (e.g. all users by default are administrators in winxp) > Possibilites are there, but basically they are limited to something like: > > (ata0) (pci-X-Y-Z:ata0) (usb-X-Y:scsi0) (pci-X-Y-Z:scsi0) > > I do not know if those all would be valid, but I hope you get the idea. Yes. This is a solution found in grub legacy and I think it's a good one. > > Alternative would be that you integrate some module to core that > validates your system that there is no extra devices or such. It's bigger since you require module and has no advantages over using hardware names. But what we can do is to check if 2 partitions share the same UUID and if it's the case prompt for password. The problem is that if the same device is visible twice then it will result in a false positive. Another solution would be to checksum modules we load. But in this case after partial update or configuration modification a run checksum-updater is necessary or at least user will have to enter his password on the next boot. > > Thanks, > Vesa Jääskeläinen Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko