-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 53
Add note about canonical order of UKI components #181
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
specs/unified_kernel_image.md
Outdated
| ## UKI Components | ||
| UKIs consist of the following resources: | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- NOTE: these components are in canonical for predictable PCR measurements. Please add any new components at the bottom of the list and NEVER reorder anything in this list. --> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Linebreak between the sentences please.
Why draft?
Co-authored-by: Jörg Behrmann <behrmann@physik.fu-berlin.de>
|
|
||
| <!-- | ||
| NOTE: these components are in canonical order for predictable PCR measurements. | ||
| Please add any new components at the bottom of the list and NEVER reorder anything in this list. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually I think pcrsig and pcrpkey are the exception to this? IE, new things should be added before .pcrsig, but these two are never used for measurements
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is not true. .pcrpkey is measured.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Before the pub key one then? I haven't checked
|
I don't think should be a comment. If we define a canonical order, then we should say so in the spec, and not in a comment in the spec. Hence please reword this, and make this regular text |
|
That was my original plan but @bluca said I should do a comment instead. Can y'all come to consensus before I move forward? I don't want to ping-pong back and forth |
|
It's fine to say it in the spec too (I'd also keep the comment immediately above so that it's harder to accidentally miss) |
|
Any chance you can add a brief comment to the visible part of the spec as suggested? seems good to go otherwise |
No description provided.