I really wish Phoronix would stop making articles about stuff they have no idea about Signed FSP introduced with PantherLake (announced 2 days ago) does indeed introduce a new component called "FSP-O" which moves reset vector to the FSP
-
I really wish Phoronix would stop making articles about stuff they have no idea about
Signed FSP introduced with PantherLake (announced 2 days ago) does indeed introduce a new component called "FSP-O" which moves reset vector to the FSP.
It's controlled by the same mechanism as BootGuard - if PCH is fused with vendor's keys (EOM), then only FSP binaries signed with that key will be allowed to execute.
This however doesn't change anything for API mode (like what coreboot is using), only dispatch (UDK, likely AMI/Insyde).
I'm sure support for signing in API mode will eventually happen, but the point is that as long as PCH isn't fused with vendor's keys (or BootGuard is disabled), FSP signing can be skipped (and you can even build your own if you have appropriate NDAs in place to get sources).
Then, they claim "ACPI support is also added to the FSP" which is just factually false.
Intel simply bumped PPI (Platform Initialization Specification), which extends topology information with Module, Tile and Die:
- https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/PI_Spec_1_7_A_final_May1.pdf (page 2-187)
- https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/MdePkg/Include/Protocol/MpService.h#L104-L132
- https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/89462
Like... come on, do some research beforehand. -
I really wish Phoronix would stop making articles about stuff they have no idea about
Signed FSP introduced with PantherLake (announced 2 days ago) does indeed introduce a new component called "FSP-O" which moves reset vector to the FSP.
It's controlled by the same mechanism as BootGuard - if PCH is fused with vendor's keys (EOM), then only FSP binaries signed with that key will be allowed to execute.
This however doesn't change anything for API mode (like what coreboot is using), only dispatch (UDK, likely AMI/Insyde).
I'm sure support for signing in API mode will eventually happen, but the point is that as long as PCH isn't fused with vendor's keys (or BootGuard is disabled), FSP signing can be skipped (and you can even build your own if you have appropriate NDAs in place to get sources).
Then, they claim "ACPI support is also added to the FSP" which is just factually false.
Intel simply bumped PPI (Platform Initialization Specification), which extends topology information with Module, Tile and Die:
- https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/PI_Spec_1_7_A_final_May1.pdf (page 2-187)
- https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/MdePkg/Include/Protocol/MpService.h#L104-L132
- https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/89462
Like... come on, do some research beforehand.@elly Ha ha, there is just no way he could be understanding any of that without a couple of talks on it.
No offense to him, he used to be a carpenter, but I see the value of phoronix as being an RSS feed with the occasional benchmarks. This is not where you get your hard facts from.
When I was more involved in Xorg communication, I was basically writing press releases for him to quote, and everyone was happy. Expecting him to know everything will just make you pissed.
-
@elly Ha ha, there is just no way he could be understanding any of that without a couple of talks on it.
No offense to him, he used to be a carpenter, but I see the value of phoronix as being an RSS feed with the occasional benchmarks. This is not where you get your hard facts from.
When I was more involved in Xorg communication, I was basically writing press releases for him to quote, and everyone was happy. Expecting him to know everything will just make you pissed.
@mupuf @elly I don't care much about the regular inaccuracies or the weird things he publishes (at a certain point he had an article for every boring pull request and pach series I sent out to LKML).
The much bigger problem is the comment section, it's essentially unmoderated and full of vile people. I've blocked his website on all my machines now.
-
@mupuf @elly I don't care much about the regular inaccuracies or the weird things he publishes (at a certain point he had an article for every boring pull request and pach series I sent out to LKML).
The much bigger problem is the comment section, it's essentially unmoderated and full of vile people. I've blocked his website on all my machines now.
@sven @mupuf @elly I used to have a subscription to Phoronix, but I cancelled it after the extreme harassment I saw, particularly a lot of transphobia around the Asahi project.
I emailed Micheal to explain my motivations, and he shared his frustration and told me that there would be a cleanup, and to tell him about any violations. To his credit, he did clean up some.
I offered to volunteer to moderate, but never got a reply to that. The fact still remains, that it is a mess over there.
-
@sven @mupuf @elly I used to have a subscription to Phoronix, but I cancelled it after the extreme harassment I saw, particularly a lot of transphobia around the Asahi project.
I emailed Micheal to explain my motivations, and he shared his frustration and told me that there would be a cleanup, and to tell him about any violations. To his credit, he did clean up some.
I offered to volunteer to moderate, but never got a reply to that. The fact still remains, that it is a mess over there.
-
R ActivityRelay shared this topic
-
-
