On 04/18/18 14:23, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
Hi,
> Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree. One use case is that you want a domain
> config in which well-known OS-es, signed by the MS UEFI certs, just boot
> with SB enabled. (Some of our internal folks really want this.)
>
> Another use case is that you want a domain in which SB *can* be enabled,
> but your installer is signed with a different certificate chain (or it
> is unsigned), and with *just* the MS certs enrolled, it wouldn't boot at
> all. So you want the SB *feature*, but definitely not the initial
> enrollment / SB *operational mode*.
So "secure-boot-enrolled-keys" also has SB turned on.
Yes.
> For me to understand you better, are you suggesting merely that
I:
>
> - rename @secure-boot-enrolled-keys to @enrolled-keys, and
>
> - drop the reference to @secure-boot from the end of the @enrolled-keys
> documentation paragraph? (Namely, "@secure-boot-enrolled-keys is only
> valid if the firmware also supports @secure-boot").
Yes. So "secure-boot" specifies "firmware binary supports
secure-boot"
and "enrolled-keys" specifies "firmware nvram template has keys enrolled
(and SB enabled).
OK.
Other question: Do we want allow to specify which certs/keys are
enrolled? Which would probably mean to drop "enrolled-keys" from
features and make it an optional string instead,
Not an enum? "Microsoft" below should be an enum constant, shouldn't it?
then specify
"'enrolled-keys' : 'Microsoft'" in the json file.
If this is really necessary (up to Dan :) ), I'm down with it.
Thanks
Laszlo