I have 4*3TB disks in a RAID-Z. zpool list says the size is 10.9TB, df -h says the size is 7.8TB. I expected to see 9TB as the reported size. What is happening? Is the full capacity of the disks being used? Bianca Gibson <bianca.rachel.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Update on secure boot from the Melbourne Free Software mailing list.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Chris Samuel <chris@csamuel.org> Date: 31 May 2012 16:43 Subject: [free-software-melb] Draft Fedora plan to cope with Secure Boot on x86 hardware To: Melbourne Free Software Interest Group < free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au>
Hi all,
Matthew Garrett has just posted a draft plan on how Fedora 18 plans to cope with Windows 8 certified x86 hardware that has Secure Boot enabled in EFI.
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html
Basically it involves signing up with Microsoft, paying a $99 one-off fee and then getting them to sign a boot shim that will boot Grub2 that has been signed by a Fedora key. Then it has to be signed code all the way down to user space, so no loading out-of-tree drivers, filesystems or other modules, either FLOSS or proprietary (and certainly not a custom kernels) whilst Secure Boot is enabled.
For those who've not come across what this means, he has a nice summary:
# Secure boot is built on the idea that all code that can touch the # hardware directly is trusted, and any untrusted code must go through # the trusted code. This can be circumvented if users can execute # arbitrary code in the kernel. So, we'll be moving to requiring # signed kernel modules and locking down certain aspects of kernel # functionality. The most obvious example is that it won't be possible # to access PCI regions directly from userspace, which means all # graphics cards will need kernel drivers. Userspace modesetting will # be a thing of the past. Again, disabling secure boot will disable # these restrictions. # # Signed modules are obviously troubling from a user perspective. # We'll be signing all the drivers that we ship, but what about out # of tree drivers? We don't have a good answer for that yet. As # before, we don't want any kind of solution that works for us # but doesn't work for other distributions. Fedora-only or # Ubuntu-only drivers are the last thing anyone wants, and this # really needs to be handled in a cross-distribution way.
Interestingly he also shows that you can use Secure Boot to ensure that your system will only be able to boot Fedora (etc) and never boot a proprietary OS:
# A system in custom mode should allow you to delete all existing keys # and replace them with your own. After that it's just a matter of # re-signing the Fedora bootloader (like I said, we'll be providing # tools and documentation for that) and you'll have a computer that # will boot Fedora but which will refuse to boot any Microsoft code. # It may be a little more awkward for desktops because you may have # to handle the Microsoft-signed UEFI drivers on your graphics and # network cards, but this is also solvable. I'm looking at ways to # implement a tool to allow you to automatically whitelist the # installed drivers. Barring firmware backdoors, it's possible to # configure secure boot such that your computer will only run software # you trust. Freedom means being allowed to run the software you want # to run, but it also means being able to choose the software you # don't want to run.
Interesting times!
cheers, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
This email may come with a PGP signature as a file. Do not panic. For more info see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
-- Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S Android phone with K-9 Mail.