Intel Releases New BSD-Licensed Open-Source Firmware Implementation

[Vistaus]

AMD, maybe it's time to support Coreboot on your platforms?

I wonder why AMD doesn't support it already, given the fact that Intel is evil and AMD is the holy open source company...

[IreMinMon]

This bootloader could be interesting only if you are an OEM that wants to make a UEFI firmware without having to resort to the usual suspects (AMI, Insyde to name a few), so overall, meh.

Wasn't Google interested in putting Coreboot in their Chromebooks? Could it be that this is some kind of a pro-Google move by Intel?
Anyways, i would be interested in latest motherboards running Coreboot, even with the Intel blobs. If this makes it any easier for third party OEMs to sell them than I'n perfectly fine with this.

[starshipeleven]

Wasn't Google interested in putting Coreboot in their Chromebooks? Could it be that this is some kind of a pro-Google move by Intel?

Uhm, Google has been using Coreboot in their chromebooks since the beginning. Apart from ARM devices of course, there it's using just u-boot.
Afaik Google pays the fees and their devs sign the NDA to get access to info about stuff.

Anyways, i would be interested in latest motherboards running Coreboot, even with the Intel blobs. If this makes it any easier for third party OEMs to sell them than I'n perfectly fine with this.

Meh. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Coreboot does not have a "BIOS Setup" interface you can access, this also doesn't. All hardware configs are stored in binary form in the board firmware, if you want to change some option (the most common is enabling VT-d for virtualization, there can be also Sata hot-swap or other stuff like disabling the useless integrated audio IC) you have to recompile the firmware. Which is perfectly fine if you have the sources.

I don't understand (not my field) if it's possible to actually take a "stock" firmware made with this new framework thing and "cook" a new firmware with different settings or just updating it with the latest sources/blobs (for security/performance). I see from the docs that it generates binary board definition files (stuff that contains board-specific configuration), if these blobs can be extracted from the stock image then yeah it's cool, it should allow third party modification.

It would be cool if Intel revitalized a bit BIOS modding. It was thriving before UEFI and firmware signature enforcement.

Although if the board is enforcing firmware signature it will boot only firmware approved by the manufacturer.

[michaelb1]

I fully agree with these two comments dropped at coreboot mailing list:

1) Ivan Ivanov:
Slim Bootloader? Thanks, but
" We wanted the open source Intel ME / FSP firmwares, and all we got is this lousy byproduct of Not-Invented-Here syndrome "
/thread

2) Alberto Bursi:
Slim-bootloader is BSD-license. Not just NIH, it "fixes" one of the last big Coreboot "isses", the license.
Gotta protect your IP man, think of the children.

[michaelb1]

Coreboot does not have a "BIOS Setup" interface you can access, this also doesn't.

Actually there's a payload called "nvramcui" which provides this interface. Although it might be imperfect (not many menu items and not all of them are working) the reason is indeed that everyone is used to choosing the "best" settings while compilation. Like almost everyone (aside from selecting the boot devices) sets up their BIOS just once

the most common is enabling VT-d for virtualization

Important features like this one are always enabled at the default coreboot configuration for a specific board. Even more, I don't think its' possible to easily disable the coreboot's virtualization unless you'd be manually editing Kconfigs.

It would be cool if Intel revitalized a bit BIOS modding

Sadly it wouldn't happen: Intel just wanted a "coreboot fork with BSD license, the development of which benefits Intel only and e.g. not those AMD coreboot-supported boards without Intel ME / AMD PSP backdoors. The corporations do not like providing the free benefits to those people who aren't their paying customers even when it doesn't cost anything to them.

[starshipeleven]

Actually there's a payload called "nvramcui" which provides this interface. Although it might be imperfect (not many menu items and not all of them are working)

It's some alpha-ish thingy. I'm disregarding it for a reason.

Important features like this one are always enabled at the default coreboot configuration for a specific board. Even more, I don't think its' possible to easily disable the coreboot's virtualization unless you'd be manually editing Kconfigs.

Irrelevant as I'm just citing Coreboot as an example, we don't know if this new slimboot thing has any "important feature" always active, imho there is no real reason for Intel to force features on or off, and it makes a lot of sense to allow their customers to enable only the stuff they really require for the sake of locking down and differentiating their product lines with what is basically a different firmware setup.

For the sake of argument, I'm half sure that Chromebooks do have VT disabled in their stock coreboot-derived firmware.