From Linus Torvalds <> Date Tue, 3 Apr 2018 14:26:48 -0700 Subject Re: [GIT PULL] Kernel lockdown for secure boot On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com> wrote:

>

> Secure Boot ensures that the firmware will only load signed bootloaders. If

> a signed bootloader loads a kernel that's effectively an unsigned

> bootloader, there's no point in using Secure Boot



Bullshit.



I may want to know that I'm running *my* kernel, but once that is the

case, I trust it.



In fact, I tend to trust it more than some random vendor key. You should too.



Your whole argument is FUNDAMENTALLY garbage. It's the Disney kind of

garbage. It was garbage back then, and it's garbage now.



It is also garbage for a simple technical reason: secure boot can be

hard to turn off. Sometimes "turn off" means "you just have to add

your own keys".



Yes, on x86 hardware at least at some point MS actually had the rule

that it has to be something you can turn off. That rule is apparently

not true on ARM, though.



Seriously. You sound like you're parroting some party line, not like

you are answering the actual question.



So again: why do you conflate the two issues?



If you want lockdown, fine, enable it. But what the F*CK does that

have to do with whether you had secure boot or not?



Linus



