-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Drop tboot builderv2 #4
Conversation
de4811d
to
6a8fa2c
Compare
It installed well without tboot. The only thing that doesn't work is the grub.cfg generation. It looks like grub2-mkconfig doesn't look at |
I guess it has to do with file permissions. I changed https://github.com/TrenchBoot/qubes-antievilmaid/pull/4/files#diff-178386e8f730612b1192d7523b609267412f90efe0feeebf30125657ce74b52dL67, it used to point to non-existing file, and it is later used in few |
@krystian-hebel also what doesn't work is the slaunch_module command. GRUB says that My GRUB menuentry:
|
When I look at the code before the changes, we had: Why one has 19 and the others 20? I guess those with 20 come from tboot. Maybe this is related?
|
Exactly my point. There is no file with
|
GRUB has file with 20:
|
Ok it seems the packages refuse to be installed because there is the same or newer version currently installed. |
Even if I reinstall the package the modules are only placed to |
Difference in the boot process I noticed is that right now with TPM2.0 there is no prompt for SRK password. @krystian-hebel is that correct? |
Have you installed AEM as per https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-antievilmaid/blob/main/README#L114? There are some steps to be done after RPM package is installed. |
236902e
to
72b1448
Compare
I have used |
@krystian-hebel when can I hope for the discussions to be addressed? |
@miczyg1 today, I hope. I need to check why it even worked with tboot in the first place. |
Confirmed, the |
Changing the order of the packages passed to the |
Signed-off-by: Krystian Hebel <[email protected]>
Neither TBoot nor TrenchBoot extend PCR19, which resulted in failure in sanity check. Signed-off-by: Krystian Hebel <[email protected]>
72b1448
to
4a92e6d
Compare
It seems that legacy boot was not tested when UEFI was developed. There are no calls to In any case, I modified RPM spec here to hopefully properly call |
Doesn't seem to work 😦 debugging... |
While Intel names ACMs more or less consequently, users sometimes rename those files, especially since those names have to be manually written into dom0 shell to copy them from another VM. Signed-off-by: Krystian Hebel <[email protected]>
Strange, |
Yes, |
No description provided.