Re: [libvirt PATCH] kbase: Always explicitly enable secure-boot firmware feature
On Thu, Aug 04, 2022 at 03:32:32AM -0500, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 05:29:15PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 06:15:24PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > <os firmware='efi'>
> > <firmware>
> > + <feature enabled='yes' name='secure-boot'/>
> > <feature enabled='no' name='enrolled-keys'/>
> > </firmware>
> > </os>
>
> If we want secureboot disabled, this looks wrong. It just enables
> secureboot, but without any keys. We need enabled=no to ask for
> a firmware without SecureBoot at all.
Mh. From a practical standpoint, the scenarios
* firmware has secure boot support but there are no enrolled keys
* firmware doesn't have secure boot support
are pretty much equivalent: either way, unsigned code will be allowed
to run.
Yes & no - one allows you to enroll custom keys, the other doesn't
allow it. For most people that distinction doesn't matter but it is
a significant difference.
I don't mind documenting both, but we should explain why we are
illustrating two different mechanisms, as when the question is
"how to I disable secureboot" an answer saying "secure_boot
enabled=yes"
simply looks wrong.
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|