Comment # 5 on bug 1134303 from Guillaume GARDET

(In reply to Andreas F�rber from comment #3)
> The patch looks okay to me so far. However it is only for aarch64 and may
> need to be revisited later for jsc#PM-26 if we choose to package Image.gz or
> something.

Not sure what jsc#PM-26 is about, but we can update later, if needed.

> For %arm it would need to be the zImage equivalent.

Not sure if it is useful to sign armv7 zImage, as I am not sure if there are
firmware supporting it, but why not.

> Not sure whether the other non-x86 architectures care.
> 
> There are some sections further down the file that set an $image variable
> with the name - maybe it would make sense to rearrange the code so that we
> can just reuse that variable instead of duplicating it?

Indeed, we could do that. 
FYI, in master branch, only armv6, armv7, arm64, x86 and x86_64 do have
CONFIG_EFI_STUB=y and would have a signed kernel.

So, should I add support for all archs, which would add armv6 and armv7 to the
current patch?