Re: kernel unsigned
etienne.mollier@mailoo.org wrote:
>deloptes, on 2019-10-03:
>> Gerard ROBIN wrote:
>>
>> >> What exactly bugs you about the signed kernel? The kernel is so big
>> >> that the extra signatures hardly make a difference.
>> > I read somewhere that the signed kernel was for the "secure boot" of
>> > microsoft and I have nothing of microsoft on my machine, so that's why
>> > I installed the unsigned kernel.
>>
>> does someone know if signed is needed for UEFI to work properly in some
>> configurations?
>
>Good day deloptes,
>
>I don't know if someone else hit some other corner base, but
>signed kernels, bootloaders, drivers, and the like are only
>required if one wishes to, or has to, boot with UEFI Secure Boot
>enabled. That's the only configuration I can think of where it
>would be needed.
It's only *needed* if you're doing SB, but even if you have SB
disabled there is basically no downside to having the signed packages
installed. Things will work just fine, just taking a *tiny* bit more
disk space. Hence we've defaulted to doing things that way - everybody
will get a consistent set of packages that way.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
Armed with "Valor": "Centurion" represents quality of Discipline,
Honor, Integrity and Loyalty. Now you don't have to be a Caesar to
concord the digital world while feeling safe and proud.
Reply to: