Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:00:40 -0700 From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> To: Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, Mark Johnston <markj@FreeBSD.org>, <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org>, <sjg@juniper.net> Subject: Re: early x86 microcode loading Message-ID: <60227.1531429240@kaos.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <fd698462-4e42-df84-c680-30f1e9eca5a7@vangyzen.net> References: <20180712183116.GB15892@raichu> <6a83fad1-7616-eea5-d86b-83db693a9c73@FreeBSD.org> <fd698462-4e42-df84-c680-30f1e9eca5a7@vangyzen.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> wrote: > I hesitate to suggest this, due to the necessary change in /two/ boot > loaders, but... The foo.d approach is very convenient for packages. An > activation script installed by the port/package could create a new > /boot/loader.conf.d/devcpu-data file containing these lines. A > pkg-message would instruct the user to run it. The ability for packages to add to the boot env is indeed nice, (we do that in Junos) but a loader.conf.d/ would be problematic for anyone whating verification (at least using my implementation) during boot. Allowing subdirs such that a loader.conf snippet, the module (or whatever) and associated signatures could all co-exist without interference with other packages works nicely.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?60227.1531429240>