The State Of LinuxBoot For Replacing Proprietary UEFI Firmware With The Linux Kernel

[Falcon1]

It is stupid to store the Linux kernel inside your SPI Flash chip, since you'd need to reflash it each time there is some minor Linux kernel update

You really should look at the slides. SPI will contain a minimal Linux kernel for bringing up the fixed hardware. Then KExec into to full fledged kernel from your favorite distro or grub, Windows or whatever.

That UEFI blob that you rarely patch is just as "broken" as any Linux kernel. The only difference is that the Linux Kernel gets patched and upgraded. That UEFI blob will sit and expose your system until and as for as long as the vender deems it profitable/unprofitable to fix it.

The Linux kernel is under continues scrutiny unlike the UEFI from some vendor whose code is hardly reviewed.

The fact that the Linux kernel receives more patches does not imply that it's worse that UEFI.

There are far more Linux Kernel developers than UEFI developers. So from a business standpoint it a no-brainer. LinuxBoot is cheaper to maintain.

[starshipeleven]

It is stupid to store the Linux kernel inside your SPI Flash chip, since you'd need to reflash it each time there is some minor Linux kernel update

The linux kernel stored on flash is just used as a bootloader, most stuff is disabled as it's job is just find the distro kernel and boot it. You don't need to update it often if at all.

[varikonniemi]

What's wrong with using a cut-down minimal kernel on flash and then kexec the everyday kernel?

It is not as elegant.

[michaelb1]

That UEFI blob that you rarely patch is just as "broken" as any Linux kernel. The only difference is that the Linux Kernel gets patched and upgraded. That UEFI blob will sit and expose your system until and as for as long as the vender deems it profitable/unprofitable to fix it.

The Linux kernel is under continues scrutiny unlike the UEFI from some vendor whose code is hardly reviewed.

The fact that the Linux kernel receives more patches does not imply that it's worse that UEFI.

There are far more Linux Kernel developers than UEFI developers. So from a business standpoint it a no-brainer. LinuxBoot is cheaper to maintain.

What UEFI blob you are talking about? I'm not using any UEFI blobs with my coreboot - because SeaBIOS is much much better, it is quite slim and efficient, and can do almost everything that some tianocore could. SeaBIOS is the default coreboot payload, and rightfully so

[ribalda]

What UEFI blob you are talking about? I'm not using any UEFI blobs with my coreboot - because SeaBIOS is much much better, it is quite slim and efficient, and can do almost everything that some tianocore could. SeaBIOS is the default coreboot payload, and rightfully so

Unfortunately there are new platforms where we cannot run coreboot. That is the whole point of this project.
If we can run coreboot then we do not need this.