SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

September 2013

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Yasha Karant <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Yasha Karant <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:33:12 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (106 lines)
To be specific, my colleague is using the licensed-for-free binary 
download of current OpenSuSE that nominally supports UEFI Secure Boot -- 
and it does not work in fact on the hardware he has.  He did experiment 
with a licensed copy of MS Win 8, and it would install on the same 
platform without this issue (but absolutely is not what he wants or is 
willing to use as a primary -- non-Virtual-Box running under -- OS.

On 09/24/2013 09:55 AM, Connie Sieh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Yasha Karant wrote:
>
>> This thread started because my colleague is using SuSE and tried Ubuntu
>> -- and both failed to secure boot properly from the generic hardware to
>> which he upgraded.  This failure prompted a question about SL (as a
>> no-fee option for a TUV enterprise, commercial, supported, production
>> Linux base).
>>
>> Evidently, the current answer for SL is that it is not UEFI Secure Boot
>> enabled, and SL 6x cannot reliably be installed upon such systems --
>> depending upon the quirks (or proprietary generosity) of the actual BIOS
>> supplier.
>
> OpenSuSE supports "secure boot" not SuSE as I stated earlier.
>
> I am sure it is only "recent" versions of OpenSuSE, Fedora and Ubuntu
> that support 'secure boot".
>
> See the following for more info.  In particular pages 12 and 17.  There
> are references to youtube videos on page 18 showing Windows 8 dual
> booting with Ubuntu 12.10 .
>
> http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/LinuxConUEFIandLinuxBresniker.pdf
>
>
>
> It is efi compliant.  If the bios vendor does not allow "secure boot" to
> be turned off then one should "converse" with said vendor.
>
> -connie sieh
>>
>> Yasha Karant
>>
>> On 09/24/2013 09:04 AM, Connie Sieh wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Yasha Karant wrote:
>>>
>>>> Secure boot is enabled.  Evidently, the only means to disable secure
>>>> boot requires that a secure boot loader/configuration program be
>>>> running
>>>> -- e.g., the MS proprietary boot loader (typically, supplied as part of
>>>> MS Windows 8) must be used to disable secure boat if the UEFI actually
>>>> permits this to be disabled (I have heard of some UEFI implementations
>>>> that do not permit secure boot truly to be disabled).
>>>
>>> If the system is Windows 8 logo compatible and is x86_4 then a way to
>>> disable "secure boot" must be provided by the hardware vendor.  This is
>>> commonly done via a option in the "bios".  This requirement is part of
>>> the "microsoft windows 8 logo requirements".  Note the method of
>>> disabling is not defined by the UEFI spec.  So each vendor may do it
>>> differently.
>>>
>>> The only hardware that does not permit "secure boot" to be disabled is
>>> arm based Windows.  The Windows logo requirements at at work here.
>>>
>>>  >
>>>> If Linux cannot handle this issue, then Linux is finished on all
>>>> generic
>>>> (e.g., not Apple that supplies both the hardware and operating
>>>> environment software under a restrictive proprietary for-profit
>>>> intellectual property license) X86-64 hardware, as (almost?) all
>>>> current
>>>> such hardware is MS 8 (UEFI secure boot) compliant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> At the moment Fedora, SuSE , Ubuntu all can handle "secure boot".  It is
>>> expected that RHEL 7 will also handle it.  It is also possible to "sign"
>>> your own kernel and place your keys in the "bios".
>>>
>>> -connie
>>>
>>>> Yasha Karant
>>>>
>>>> On 09/23/2013 10:29 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Yasha Karant wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A colleague who uses SuSE non-enterprise for his professional
>>>>>> (enterprise) workstations has now attempted to load the latest SuSE
>>>>>> on a
>>>>>> machine with a new generic (aftermarket) "gamer" UEFI  X86-64
>>>>>> motherboard.  It does not properly boot.  I do not have any UEFI
>>>>>> motherboards, and thus no experience with SL6x on such motherboards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is "secure boot" enabled in the UEFI ?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anyone?  Does SL6x boot correctly (and easily) on a UEFI
>>>>>> motherboard?  If so, he may switch to SL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes as long as "secure boot" is disabled .
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yasha Karant
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -connie sieh
>>>>
>>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2