434 lines
21 KiB
Markdown
434 lines
21 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: Software and hardware freedom status for each mainboard supported by Libreboot
|
|
x-toc-enable: true
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
Introduction
|
|
============
|
|
|
|
The short version of the story is: *all* boards currently supported by Libreboot
|
|
can be initialised in coreboot with *free*, *libre* or *open source* code, that
|
|
the user can study in great depth and adapt for their purposes, but there are
|
|
certain caveats and pitfalls that the user must know about for certain machines.
|
|
|
|
As many readers may know, coreboot (which Libreboot uses for hardware
|
|
initialisation) is nominally *Free As In Freedom*, *libre* or *open source*
|
|
software; albeit, coreboot attempts to provide free code to initialise each
|
|
machine. The coreboot developers work very hard to reverse engineer as much
|
|
functionality as possible, so as to provide freely licensed source code.
|
|
These people are to be celebrated, for Libreboot could not exist without such
|
|
efforts by them.
|
|
|
|
On *some* boards that coreboot supports, certain binary blobs are required.
|
|
This may be for things like video framebuffer initialisation, setting up the
|
|
memory controllers and so on. A binary blob is, in this context, any software
|
|
that only comes as executable binary code *with source code unavailable*. This
|
|
makes it harder (but not impossible) to study how such programs work, and those
|
|
blobs often come with restrictions on either their usage and/or distribution.
|
|
|
|
The purpose of this document is to clearly describe the presence (or lack) of
|
|
binary blobs, on each given hardware platform or, within each platform,
|
|
specific mainboard variations. Such information was either absent or poorly
|
|
worded on the Libreboot website, so it was decided that formal documentation
|
|
should be written. The reason for such absence was that Libreboot previously
|
|
provided support *only* for those boards that do *not* require binary blobs in
|
|
the main flash IC for boot firmware, so no such documentation was required.
|
|
|
|
A more *pragmatic* policy was published during November 2022, with a view to
|
|
helping as many people as possible install coreboot, even on less-than-ideal
|
|
hardware (while continuing to also support the more freedom-friendly hardware).
|
|
Libreboot still has strict standards about precisely *what* blobs are allowed,
|
|
which you can read in the following document, thus:
|
|
|
|
[Binary blob reduction policy](news/policy.md)
|
|
|
|
In this article, you will learn of all the ways (in practise) that Libreboot
|
|
implements this *blob reduction policy*, especially that line in it which says,
|
|
quote, "if a blob can be avoided, it must be avoided".
|
|
|
|
Why does this matter?
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
|
The *practical goal* of the Libreboot project is to support as much hardware of
|
|
coreboot compatibility as possible, fully tested with pre-compiled ROM images
|
|
and easy flashing instructions, aimed at non-technical users so as to bring in
|
|
as many users as possible into the coreboot community. With more users, many
|
|
more people are exposed to coreboot and this will inevitably lead to more
|
|
people developing coreboot, which is a critical project in the libre software
|
|
movement. With more developers, more *users* will be able to achieve a level of
|
|
freedom or *sovereignty* in their computing and, thus, the cycle shall continue.
|
|
|
|
This goal exists because the *ideological goal* of Libreboot is to spread
|
|
software freedom by whatever means necessary, to as many people as possible.
|
|
Universal access to source code, the ability to study and change the code or
|
|
redistribute it, and run it infinitely for any purpose is extremely important.
|
|
Such freedom should be the *default* for all software. This makes coreboot
|
|
extremely useful, even in cases where a binary blob is needed for certain
|
|
functionality. Freedom should be the *default* for all software, and it is the
|
|
purpose of *Libreboot* to help establish such a reality.
|
|
|
|
The *policy* of the Libreboot project, within that goal, is to provide such
|
|
hardware support with as *few* binary blobs as possible, ideally *none* as is
|
|
the case with many configurations that Libreboot supports. Libreboot *will*
|
|
attempt to support any given piece of hardware, even in cases where *full*
|
|
software freedom is not possible; for example, if coreboot requires a blob for
|
|
raminit on a given board, the blob would be provided by Libreboot.
|
|
|
|
*You can read Libreboot's blob reduction/minimalisation policy in more detail.
|
|
Please read the document, titled: [Binary Blob Reduction
|
|
Policy](news/policy.md).*
|
|
|
|
Coreboot architecture
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
|
Although not *strictly* necessary for non-developers, you may find it useful
|
|
to gain a high-level understanding of *how* coreboot works, to gain some
|
|
some context about some of the topics discussed in this article. See:
|
|
|
|
<https://doc.coreboot.org/getting_started/architecture.html>
|
|
|
|
100% libre init in coreboot
|
|
===========================
|
|
|
|
*All* mainboards currently supported by Libreboot can have 100%
|
|
libre initialisation *from the coreboot side*. In this context, that refers to
|
|
any initialisation handled on the main CPU, to bring up the machine for code
|
|
execution.
|
|
|
|
The boot firmware is not the *only* software present in any machine, and there
|
|
are some contexts that must be understood to see the bigger picture.
|
|
|
|
The reason this distinction matters (referring specifically to coreboot's side
|
|
of the initialisation) will become clearer, in the following sections:
|
|
|
|
A universal exemption is made in Libreboot, permitting (read: requiring, per
|
|
project policy) the inclusion of CPU microcode updates if available. You can
|
|
read more about that and the reasons *why* by reading the following article:
|
|
|
|
[CPU microcode updates
|
|
are **OK**](news/policy.md#more-detailed-insight-about-microcode)
|
|
|
|
[Releases after Libreboot 20230423 will provide separate ROMs with microcode
|
|
excluded, alongside default ones with microcode included.](news/microcode.md)
|
|
|
|
Intel platforms
|
|
===============
|
|
|
|
Descriptor vs descriptorless setup
|
|
----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Libreboot supports several mainboards using Intel platforms. Of these, there
|
|
are essentially two class of machine (for the purposes of this article):
|
|
|
|
* Descriptorless configuration
|
|
* Descriptor-based configuration
|
|
|
|
What does *descriptor* mean? Well, traditionally, the main flash IC (containing
|
|
the boot firmware, commonly referred to as *the BIOS*) on Intel machines,
|
|
contained only *x86* executable code, responsible for initialising all of
|
|
the hardware, such as the CPU, memory controller and peripherals. This is
|
|
what we will refer to as the *descriptorless* setup; in such configurations,
|
|
the Intel ME firmware is absent by default.
|
|
|
|
In a *descriptor* configuration, the flash is divided into regions such as:
|
|
|
|
* Intel flash descriptor: always the first 4KiB of the flash. Binary-encoded
|
|
configuration data for the machine, and the regions (such as this, or
|
|
others below) is defined in here. In some ways, you might think of this as
|
|
analagous to the *Master Boot Record* on a hard drive.
|
|
* Intel GbE NVM (gigabit ethernet non-volatile memory): binary-encoded
|
|
configuration data, for the onboard Intel gigabit ethernet device, if one is
|
|
present. It contains lots of settings like MAC address, what speed the NIC
|
|
should run at, PCI IDs, *LED blinking speed* and more.
|
|
If a non-Intel NIC is used, this region of the flash will not be present.
|
|
* ME (Intel Management Engine): a *nasty* security liability in its default
|
|
state, the ME provides many features such as remote management, with full
|
|
networking, The ME is a dedicated coprocessor separate from the main CPU, and
|
|
the initialisation firmware plus operating system for it is loaded from
|
|
this dedicated region in the main boot flash. More info is available [in the
|
|
FAQ](faq.md#intelme) - where ME firmware is otherwise present, Libreboot
|
|
either removes it or (with the `me_cleaner` program) reconfigures it in such
|
|
a way where it is disabled during machine initialisation.
|
|
* Platform region: non-program data, usually just a bunch of strings put there
|
|
by the hardware vendor.
|
|
* BIOS region: this contains the main boot firmware, responsible for
|
|
initialising the CPU, memory controller and peripherals, putting the
|
|
machine into a state where it can run programs (most likely a bootloader,
|
|
then an operating system). The coreboot code (provided by Libreboot) goes in
|
|
here.
|
|
|
|
*Basically*, you can think of such "regions" as analogous to *partitions* on
|
|
a hard drive. What's important is that the flash IC is *divided* into such
|
|
regions, where each region is intended for a specific purpose.
|
|
|
|
On some newer descriptor-based Intel platforms, there are more regions than
|
|
this. In some cases, the *[Embedded
|
|
Controller](faq.md#ec-embedded-controller-firmware)* (EC) firmware may also
|
|
be in its own region of the boot flash; at least for the time being, this is
|
|
not the case on any hardware that Libreboot supports (instead, it is stored
|
|
on a separate IC).
|
|
|
|
The contents of the *descriptor* and *GbE* regions are described by Intel
|
|
datasheets, but those datasheets often contain *reserved* sections where
|
|
parts are left undocumented. Reverse engineering efforts over the years have
|
|
documented some of these blank spots.
|
|
|
|
Libreboot does *not* distribute Intel ME images
|
|
-----------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
The ME contains many modules within itself, and one of these modules is the
|
|
BringUp code. This BringUp code is the ME's *own* initialisation firmware,
|
|
analogous to coreboot. By that very same analogy, the other modules of
|
|
Intel ME (such as the ME kernel) are similar (conceptually) to
|
|
a *coreboot payload*.
|
|
|
|
Thus, a *neutered ME* setup is, on the intel ME coprocessor, analogous to
|
|
running coreboot without a payload. In this state, the ME initialises itself
|
|
ready to run code, but then *doesn't actually run code*. It is thus benign,
|
|
both from a security- and freedom-minded point of view. In other words, the ME
|
|
is *disabled*.
|
|
|
|
Libreboot does *not* distribute the Intel ME firmware in any way, whether in
|
|
the Git repository or in releases. Where it is needed, Libreboot provides
|
|
scripts that automatically fetch and install it, in a *neutered* state by
|
|
running the `me_cleaner` program, which you can learn about here:
|
|
|
|
<https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner/wiki/How-does-it-work%3F>
|
|
|
|
This is completely automated. If you're compiling ROM images from `lbmk.git`,
|
|
libreboot's automated build system, the ME firmware will be downloaded,
|
|
neutered with `me_cleaner` and inserted into the final ROM image automatically.
|
|
|
|
*Released* ROM images, provided pre-compiled, omit the Intel ME firmware. On
|
|
platforms that require it, the *same* scripts that insert it during the build
|
|
process can *also* run post-build, reinserting Intel ME into the boot ROM. This
|
|
is due to licensing issues surrounding the distribution of Intel ME images.
|
|
|
|
The Libreboot build system fetches it directly from the vendor for a given
|
|
machine or set of machines (as an example, Lenovo provides images for several
|
|
ThinkPad machines). This ensures that each user gets the exactly same
|
|
configuration (the other alternative is to extract Intel ME firmware from the
|
|
original vendor image, in the ME region of the flash IC).
|
|
|
|
You can learn more about this on the following page:
|
|
[docs/install/ivy_has_common.md](docs/install/ivy_has_common.md)
|
|
|
|
The ME firmware is *required* on almost all Intel platforms, or the machine
|
|
will turn *off* after 30 minutes. In the neutered setup, the BringUp code of
|
|
Intel's ME will disable that 30 minute reset time, allowing you to use your
|
|
computer normally even though the ME is *not* running anything after that.
|
|
|
|
Neutered ME really is disabled
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Consider this: if the ME is only doing it's own BringUp, but then not
|
|
running anything, is it really anything more than a slight drain on your
|
|
battery life? In the neutered state, Intel ME is just an inactive computer
|
|
on your mainboard, one that does nothing, that you don't need and that you
|
|
will never use. Therefore, it might be considered benign from both a software
|
|
freedom perspective and a security perspective, and such is the view taken by
|
|
the Libreboot project.
|
|
|
|
If these assumptions are held, and you agreed with Libreboot's article about
|
|
microcode as linked above, and you considered the *fact* that (at least as of
|
|
now) Libreboot is capable of purely libre initialisation within coreboot, then
|
|
we can reasonably assert that Libreboot provides a decent level of software
|
|
freedom. This, in spite of how some may otherwise feel if they *don't* have
|
|
such perspective.
|
|
|
|
So, even though the remaining BringUp code for Intel ME *is* proprietary,
|
|
and cannot be modified due to cryptographic signature verification by the
|
|
hardware, it's software for a device you'll never want to actually use in
|
|
the real world, so if it's *not doing anything* in the neutered state, then
|
|
it can be ignored in practise. This depends on your point of view, and some
|
|
people may take a more dogmatic approach than this. The Libreboot project
|
|
considers neutered ME setups to be acceptable, both from a security perspective
|
|
and software freedom perspective.
|
|
|
|
More about Intel ME removal/disabling
|
|
----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
*Libreboot* provides a way to fully remove the ME firmware, while retaining
|
|
full use of the machine, on GM45 platforms with ICH9M southbridge. These are
|
|
laptops: ThinkPad X200/T400/T500/W500 and so on of that generation. See:
|
|
[docs/install/ich9utils.md](docs/install/ich9utils.md)
|
|
|
|
On newer platforms, `me_cleaner` is used. You can read about there here:
|
|
|
|
<https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner/wiki/How-does-it-work%3F>
|
|
|
|
VGA option ROMs
|
|
============
|
|
|
|
*Native* video initialisation is supported and *enabled*, for all supported
|
|
Intel platforms that have it. The source code is provided by coreboot, under
|
|
free license.
|
|
|
|
On *some* machines, dual graphics is possible. For example, certain ThinkPad
|
|
T440p mainboards come with both an Intel and an Nvidia GPU, where you can
|
|
either use *both* or just the Intel one; to use the Nvidia GPU, a binary blob
|
|
is required that Libreboot does not provide (nor will provide), instead opting
|
|
to enable only the *Intel* GPU (where libre initialisation code is available
|
|
in coreboot). In most T440p mainboards, *only* the Intel GPU is physically
|
|
present.
|
|
|
|
On some ThinkPad T400, W500 and T500 mainboards, an ATI and Intel GPU is
|
|
present, and you can use either or. Once again, Libreboot *only* supports the
|
|
Intel GPU, where coreboot has libre initialisation code.
|
|
|
|
This is an example of the nuanced nature in Libreboot's policy. Libreboot
|
|
*could* provide such blobs, with the justification that they are *needed* to
|
|
use those extra processors. However, in practise, the machines are completely
|
|
useable with just Intel graphics for which source code is available.
|
|
|
|
Libreboot's default is *always* freedom, when feasible in practise. Users who
|
|
wish to have use of these additional GPUs, on such hardware, must take stock
|
|
of the following paragraph in Libreboot policy:
|
|
|
|
*"The principles above should apply to default configurations. However,
|
|
libreboot is to be configurable, allowing the user to do whatever they like."* -
|
|
configurable, it most certainly is! See: [docs/maintain/](docs/maintain/)
|
|
|
|
Memory controller initialisation
|
|
--------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Libreboot has *fully libre* initialisation available for all Intel memory
|
|
controllers on supported platforms. This *includes* Haswell (ThinkPad T440p
|
|
and W541) as of Libreboot 20230319 or higher.
|
|
|
|
AMD platforms
|
|
=============
|
|
|
|
Libreboot currently *lacks* support for AMD platforms, but information about
|
|
them will be written when this fact changes.
|
|
|
|
ARM platforms (chromebooks)
|
|
=============
|
|
|
|
Mostly blobless, except for the requirement on `daisy` and `peach` mainboards
|
|
to include BL1 bootloader blobs. These are:
|
|
|
|
* HP Chromebook 11 G1 (daisy-spring)
|
|
* Samsung Chromebook XE303 (daisy-snow)
|
|
* Samsung Chromebook 2 13” (peach-pi)
|
|
* Samsung Chromebook 2 11” (peach-pit)
|
|
|
|
Libreboot *currently* does not accomodate these blobs at all, and this is
|
|
considered to be a *bug*; such is documented on the hardware compatibility
|
|
page. They can be added manually by the user, but documentation for this is
|
|
currently lacking in the Libreboot website.
|
|
|
|
List of blobs needed, specifically for each board
|
|
=================================================
|
|
|
|
This article has thoroughly explained, in a detailed overview, the precise
|
|
nature as to *what* binary blobs are accomodated for in Libreboot. Again,
|
|
fully libre init from coreboot is available *on all currently supported boards*.
|
|
|
|
*From coreboot* is the critical aspect of this, but Libreboot's full scope is
|
|
the main flash IC which (in some cases) contains software outside of coreboot.
|
|
|
|
Here is a list, *for each* board, of those blobs:
|
|
|
|
Intel/x86
|
|
---------
|
|
|
|
Neutered ME required on these targets: `t420_8mb`, `t420s_8mb`, `t430_12mb`,
|
|
`t440p_12mb`, `t440pmrc_12mb`, `t520_8mb`, `t530_12mb`, `w530_12mb`,
|
|
`w541_12mb`, `w541mrc_12mb`, `x220_8mb`, `x230_12mb`, `x230_16mb`,
|
|
`x230edp_12mb`, `x230t_12mb`, `x230t_16mb`, `hp8200sff`, `hp2560p_8mb`
|
|
and `hp9470m_16mb`.
|
|
|
|
As stated, Libreboot provides this in a state where the ME is no longer a
|
|
threat to security. It initialises itself, but then does nothing, so it's
|
|
disabled. This is done using `me_cleaner`. See:
|
|
<https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner/wiki/How-does-it-work%3F>
|
|
|
|
KBC1126 EC firmware on `hp9470m_16mb` and `hp9470m_16mb` - on HP laptops, EC
|
|
firmware is inserted into main boot flash, rather than being on a separate IC.
|
|
This is *better* because libre replacements would be more easy to install in
|
|
the future, and reverse engineering is made much easier by it. Libreboot's
|
|
build system handles such firmware in `blobutil`, automatically downloading
|
|
it during the build process. Libreboot 20230423 onwards does scrub EC firmware
|
|
and provide functionality in `blobutil` insert, to insert them with `cbfstool`
|
|
at the correct offset as defined by coreboot config for each board.
|
|
|
|
*Microcode* updates for CPU provided on *all* x86 platforms, by default. Not
|
|
technically required, but highly recommended. To remove, do:
|
|
|
|
cbfstool filename.rom remove -n cpu_microcode_blob.bin
|
|
|
|
[Releases after Libreboot 20230423 will provide separate ROMs with microcode
|
|
excluded, alongside default ones with microcode included.](news/microcode.md)
|
|
|
|
Removal of microcode updates will affect system stability in a negative way,
|
|
introducing non-standard broken behaviour and it may result in the machine
|
|
being unable to boot properly. In other cases, doing so may break features such
|
|
as S3 suspend/resume.
|
|
|
|
CPU microcode blobs included by default, on all x86 boards. While not needed
|
|
in most cases, their use is highly recommended. For reasons why, see:
|
|
[news/policy.md#more-detailed-insight-about-microcode](news/policy.md#more-detailed-insight-about-microcode)
|
|
|
|
Intel Flash Descriptors are provided as blobs on some boards, but these are
|
|
not *software* blobs. They are configurations provided in a binary format,
|
|
fully readable by libre software. For example:
|
|
|
|
* Libreboot's `ich9gen` program generates ICH9M flash descriptors from scratch.
|
|
* Coreboot's `ifdtool` program has extensive features for manipulating Intel
|
|
flash descriptors.
|
|
* Corebot's `bincfg` program generates any sort of binary from a `.spec` file
|
|
which can describe any binary format in a human readable format. It contains
|
|
several flash descriptors for several platforms, but Libreboot does not use
|
|
these.
|
|
|
|
Intel GbE NVM config (configuration data, binary-encoded, for gigabit NIC):
|
|
|
|
* Libreboot's `ich9gen` program *also* generates GbE NVM images specifically
|
|
for Intel NICs used in GM45 thinkpads.
|
|
* Libreboot's `nvmutil` program can manipulate GbE NVM images
|
|
|
|
ARM/chromebooks
|
|
---------------
|
|
|
|
BL1 bootloader needed on: `daisy_snow`, `daisy_spring` and `peach_pit`.
|
|
|
|
Conclusion
|
|
==========
|
|
|
|
From the above, you can see that Libreboot really *does* implement a *binary
|
|
blobs reduction policy*, with the emphasis on *reduction* being most critical.
|
|
|
|
Libreboot *could* add a lot of blobs for various platforms, to enable various
|
|
extra features, that it instead avoids adding, precisely because the *purpose*
|
|
of the Libreboot project is to promote *libre* software and *minimise* the
|
|
power that proprietary software developers have over users.
|
|
|
|
I hope this article provided food for thought.
|
|
|
|
An aside: hardware freedom
|
|
--------------------------
|
|
|
|
None of the currently supported Libreboot machines have libre *hardware*, in
|
|
the sense that ICs do not come with publicly available *verilog* files and the
|
|
like. You could not manufacture your own replacements of these machines.
|
|
|
|
Some schematics and boardview files describing the circuit boards of each
|
|
machine are available online, through various channels. You have to search for
|
|
them yourself; one day, the Right To Repair movement will hopefully bring
|
|
about universal access to such documents by the public.
|
|
|
|
Further reading
|
|
===============
|
|
|
|
This article has described code what goes in the *main boot flash*, but any
|
|
computer you buy will have *tons* of firmware elsewhere in the system. Some
|
|
insights are available in the Libreboot FAQ. See:
|
|
|
|
* [faq.md#what-level-of-software-freedom-does-libreboot-give-me](faq.md#what-level-of-software-freedom-does-libreboot-give-me)
|
|
* [faq.md#what-other-firmware-exists-outside-of-libreboot](faq.md#what-other-firmware-exists-outside-of-libreboot)
|
|
|
|
Of these, the most critical are HDD/SSD firmware and EC firmware. The problems
|
|
described in those two links apply to many different computers, including
|
|
Libreboot ones, and virtually every other computer in the world.
|