Profile
Matthew Garrett
About Matthew
Active Entries
- 1: Playing with Thunderbolt under Linux on Apple hardware
- 2: A short introduction to TPMs
- 3: More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs
- 4: Samsung laptop bug is not Linux specific
- 5: Rebooting
- 6: Update on leaked UEFI signing keys - probably no significant risk
- 7: Leaked UEFI signing keys
- 8: Secure Boot and Restricted Boot.
- 9: The current state of UEFI and Linux
- 10: Using pstore to debug awkward kernel crashes
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
Re: Coreboot = dead soon? How is firmware flashing prevented?
Date: 2012-06-12 05:46 pm (UTC)How is this done? Does the boot firmware send some kind of signal to the flash chip to lock itself until the next reboot?
It would be better if operating systems (such as Windows and Fedora) were responsible for deciding that it is lockout time on the flash chip. This would allow a user supplied operating system booted to decide what should be done.
I'm hoping you'll reply and say I've got it wrong -- that we'll be in a world where you can't flash an arbitrary firmware when running a Secure Boot version of Windows or Fedora, that those systems will be the ones checking signatures before allowing flashing. Thus the freedom to switch to coreboot will still there for those who boot a different operating system.
Underlying assumption here: that the signature checking on new firmware is being done by either the boot firmware itself (with lockout to follow) or by operating systems (in which case we can run an operating system that doesn't do so) -- there's no weird crypto hardware like TPM being tied up in the Windows 8 certification requirements.