Description of problem: Broadcom BCM 43142 w/kmod-wl, 4.16.15-300.fc28.x86_64 not working UEFI secure boot is enabled Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 4.16.15-300.fc28.x86_64 Name : linux-firmware Version : 20180525 Release : 85.git7518922b.fc28 Name : kmod-wl Version : 6.30.223.271 Release : 18.fc28 Name : broadcom-wl Version : 6.30.223.271 Release : 5.fc28 Name : akmod-wl Version : 6.30.223.271 Release : 18.fc28 # lspci -n | grep 14e4 01:00.0 0280: 14e4:4365 (rev 01) # lsmod | grep wl # # lspci | grep Broad 01:00.0 Network controller: Broadcom Limited BCM43142 802.11b/g/n (rev 01) How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1.UEFI secure boot is enabled 2.# dnf install kmod-wl 3.# modprobe wl modprobe: ERROR: could not insert 'wl': Operation not permitted Actual results: No Wi-Fi Adapter found Expected results: Wi-Fi Adapter found Additional info:
Fedora does not provide or support third party proprietary kernel modules. You will need to follow up with whomever you got the module from. When you do, you might want to give more information in the bug report because there isn't anything that indicates why this would be a firmware error or really any information at all. The output from dmesg would likely be a start.
Created attachment 1452644 [details] dmesg
Might it have to do anything with the fact that "Kernel is locked down from EFI secure boot" and therefore maybe "ERROR: could not insert 'wl': Operation not permitted"? Please have a look at attached dmesg maybe you can spot what is causing that issue.
(In reply to Dirk Foerster from comment #3) > Might it have to do anything with the fact that "Kernel is locked down from > EFI secure boot" and therefore maybe "ERROR: could not insert 'wl': > Operation not permitted"? Please have a look at attached dmesg maybe you can > spot what is causing that issue. Possibly. If your module isn't signed by one of the certificates loaded into the kernel and Secure Boot is enabled, it won't let you load it. As I said, Fedora doesn't provide or support this module so it is expected that it is not signed. You can disable Secure Boot to try this if you want. This is the last reply I'll be making to this bug, regardless of status. Apologies for the harshness, but the number of other issues we have with just the open source code is large enough that spending time working against proprietary code we can't even see isn't a valuable use of time.