On 08/04/2021 10:41, Marvin Häuser wrote:
No, backwards-compatibility will not be broken in the sense that the old API is absent or malfunctioning.
Perfect. :)
As I *have* said, I imagine there to be an option (default true) to expose both variants.
Very much less perfect. The mere existence of such an option immediately reimposes the burden on external code to support both, because it opens up the possibility of running on systems where the option is set to false.
With default settings, I want the loader to be at the very least mostly plug-'n'-play with existing platform drivers and OS loaders from the real world. "Mostly" can be clarified further once we have a detailed plan on the changes (and responses to e.g. malformed binary issues with iPXE and GNU-EFI).
Yes; thank you for https://github.com/ipxe/ipxe/pull/313. It will take some time to review.
As a practical consideration: unless there is a security reason to do otherwise, you should almost certainly relax the constraints on images that your loader will accept, to avoid causing unnecessary end-user disruption. What is the *security* reason behind your alignment requirements (which clearly are not required by any other toolchain, including those used for signing Secure Boot binaries)?
Thanks, Michael -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#73838): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/73838 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/81853302/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
