grub-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2] i386-pc: build verifiers API as module


From: Daniel Kiper
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i386-pc: build verifiers API as module
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 18:22:58 +0100
User-agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:50:56AM +0800, Michael Chang wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 05:48:01PM +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:16:21PM +0800, Michael Chang via Grub-devel 
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 04:20:00PM +0100, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 07:30:26PM +0800, Michael Chang via Grub-devel 
> > > > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > IIRC I was looking at this patch a few weeks ago but decided to not take
> > it because the changes are too intrusive for freeze stage. Though I can
> > reconsider it once again if you think it is worth of it...
>
> Yes please ... It is indeed a bit instrusive, but neverthelast it is
> also worth the effort to integrate a method that will help to improve
> integrity of the grub installation.

OK, I will take a look at it once again.

> At present the procedure of module and image install is not atomic, so
> the system may suffer from booting in unspecified state if the process
> aborted prematurely in the halfway. A promising solution to revert the
> unspecified state to the original one is therefore very much desired and
> will benefit us in the log run ...
>
> > > Afterall, keeping existing running system to survive update (NOT new
> > > install) is really an important thing as many can't afford that to
> > > happen. If we can make it any better to reduce the cost please consider
> > > to do it. It doesn't conflict with the purpose to stop the short mbr gap
> > > support, given we all know the broken system can be avoided in the first
> > > place ...
> >
> > This makes sense for me and I am OK with hardening the upgrade path.
> > However, I think it is post release work...
>
> Thanks for taking the patch into consideration. Your plan also looks
> good to me.

Great!

Thanks,

Daniel



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]