From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Kernel lockdown for secure boot Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 17:33:20 -0700 Message-ID: References: <4136.1522452584@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <186aeb7e-1225-4bb8-3ff5-863a1cde86de@kernel.org> <30459.1522739219@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <9758.1522775763@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <13189.1522784944@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <9349.1522794769@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Andrew Lutomirski , David Howells , Ard Biesheuvel , James Morris , Alan Cox , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Justin Forbes , linux-man , joeyli , LSM List , Linux API , Kees Cook , linux-efi List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Honestly, I don't think the patchset is viable at all in that case. .. or rather, it's probably viable only for distributions that already have reasons to only care about controlled hardware environments, ie Chromebooks etc. But a chome OS install wouldn't care about the whole "secure boot or not" issue anyway, because they'd also control that side, an they might as well just enable it unconditionally. In contrast, the generic distros can't enable it anyway if it breaks random hardware. And it wouldn't be about secure boot or not, but about the random hardware choice. Linus