On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Steve Langasek <[email protected]> wrote: > This change is self-evidently correct, but is there a bug task somewhere > for MAAS to not generate kitchen-sink .efi images that are exercising > non-default configurations?
Not specifically. We've submitted hacks to MAAS to exclude "bad" modules temporarily in the past - it currently omits setjmp & progress on arm64. > This seems like something that we should > abstract at a different layer. E.g., we already have to build grub > netboot images in both d-i and grub2 (the grub2 ones in order to get > EFI-signed netboot images). It seems preferable for MAAS to be able to > use a "stock" netboot image config provided by grub2 instead. Agreed. Ultimately I'd like to see MAAS boot resources provide these images via signed simplestream metadata, like it does for other boot files/images. > Longer term, this may be by virtue of MAAS using EFI-signed images for > arm64, the way it does already on x86_64. So maybe that's the solution > here. It solves part of the problem, but it'd actually make things more insecure today (LP: #1457982). -dann -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1459871 Title: arm64 images built w/ setjmp module fail w/ license error To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/1459871/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
