From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0196E21 for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 21:23:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E09C1F8D1 for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 21:23:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 23:23:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Josh Boyer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20140502164438.GA1423@jtriplet-mobl1> <20140502171103.GA725@redhat.com> <1399051229.2202.49.camel@dabdike> <20140502173309.GB725@redhat.com> <5363E8E1.9030806@zytor.com> <20140502193314.GA24108@thunk.org> <20140502194935.GA9766@redhat.com> <20140502204141.GB24108@thunk.org> <20140502210123.GA13536@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Sarah Sharp , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Greg KH , Julia Lawall , Darren Hart , Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Kernel tinification: shrinking the kernel and avoiding size regressions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2 May 2014, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > And I think we can also further break this down into the classes of > > > code which require root privs (i.e., like kexec), and those which can > > > be used by any userid. > > > > In the brave new world of secure boot, we kind of have to care about > > even the root cases now too [*], but I agree in the general case. > > Speaking of that... is it worth my time to propose a "What to do about > the secure_modules/trusted_kernel/whatever patch set that distros are > carrying to support Secure Boot? I thought we had agreement and a > path forward at LPC last year, but things seem to have gotten derailed > again. I believe the biggest remaining thing on the plate is basically just kexec/kdump ... is there anything else comparably major? -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs