Hi Josh,
於 二，2012-09-25 於 09:08 -0400，Josh Boyer 提到：
> This forcibly drops CAP_COMPROMISE_KERNEL from both cap_permitted and cap_bset
> in the init_cred struct, which everything else inherits from. This works on
> any machine and can be used to develop even if the box doesn't have UEFI.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josh Boyer <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 7 +++++++
> kernel/cred.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> index 9b2b8d3..93978d5 100644
...
> diff --git a/kernel/cred.c b/kernel/cred.c
> index de728ac..7e6e83f 100644
> --- a/kernel/cred.c
> +++ b/kernel/cred.c
> @@ -623,6 +623,23 @@ void __init cred_init(void)
> 0, SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN|SLAB_PANIC, NULL);
> }
>
> +void __init secureboot_enable()
> +{
...
> +
> +/* Dummy Secure Boot enable option to fake out UEFI SB=1 */
> +static int __init secureboot_enable_opt(char *str)
> +{
> + int sb_enable = !!simple_strtol(str, NULL, 0);
> + if (sb_enable)
> + secureboot_enable();
> + return 1;
> +}
> +__setup("secureboot_enable=", secureboot_enable_opt);
> +
>
Tahashi has a good idea for use strtobool to allow
'secureboot_enable=yes' works. Please consider the following change.
Thanks a lot!
Joey Lee
>From f6841a476f3d332fe7b04cb716e0b518cccd5055 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lee, Chun-Yi <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:36:57 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] efi: more user-friendly secureboot_enable parameter
From: Takashi Iwai <[email protected]>
Use strtobool can allow 'secureboot_enable=yes', it's more user-friendly.
Signed-off-by: Lee, Chun-Yi <[email protected]>
---
kernel/cred.c | 5 +++--
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/cred.c b/kernel/cred.c
index 3f5be65..70897a2 100644
--- a/kernel/cred.c
+++ b/kernel/cred.c
@@ -633,9 +633,10 @@ void __init secureboot_enable()
/* Dummy Secure Boot enable option to fake out UEFI SB=1 */
static int __init secureboot_enable_opt(char *str)
{
- int sb_enable = !!simple_strtol(str, NULL, 0);
- if (sb_enable)
+ bool sb_enable;
+ if (!strtobool(str, &sb_enable) && sb_enable)
secureboot_enable();
+
return 1;
}
__setup("secureboot_enable=", secureboot_enable_opt);
--
1.6.0.2
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:00:06PM +0800, joeyli wrote:
> Hi Josh,
> Tahashi has a good idea for use strtobool to allow
> 'secureboot_enable=yes' works. Please consider the following change.
>
>
> Thanks a lot!
> Joey Lee
>
> >From f6841a476f3d332fe7b04cb716e0b518cccd5055 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Lee, Chun-Yi <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:36:57 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] efi: more user-friendly secureboot_enable parameter
>
> From: Takashi Iwai <[email protected]>
>
> Use strtobool can allow 'secureboot_enable=yes', it's more user-friendly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lee, Chun-Yi <[email protected]>
> ---
> kernel/cred.c | 5 +++--
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cred.c b/kernel/cred.c
> index 3f5be65..70897a2 100644
> --- a/kernel/cred.c
> +++ b/kernel/cred.c
> @@ -633,9 +633,10 @@ void __init secureboot_enable()
> /* Dummy Secure Boot enable option to fake out UEFI SB=1 */
> static int __init secureboot_enable_opt(char *str)
> {
> - int sb_enable = !!simple_strtol(str, NULL, 0);
> - if (sb_enable)
> + bool sb_enable;
> + if (!strtobool(str, &sb_enable) && sb_enable)
> secureboot_enable();
> +
> return 1;
> }
> __setup("secureboot_enable=", secureboot_enable_opt);
This seems like a good change to me. If you don't mind, I'll rework the
existing patch to do this since it hasn't been accepted upstream yet and
give Takashi-san and you appropriate credit in the commit log.
josh
於 二，2012-10-30 於 13:48 -0400，Josh Boyer 提到：
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:00:06PM +0800, joeyli wrote:
> > Hi Josh,
> > Tahashi has a good idea for use strtobool to allow
> > 'secureboot_enable=yes' works. Please consider the following change.
> >
> >
> > Thanks a lot!
> > Joey Lee
> >
> > >From f6841a476f3d332fe7b04cb716e0b518cccd5055 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Lee, Chun-Yi <[email protected]>
> > Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:36:57 +0800
> > Subject: [PATCH] efi: more user-friendly secureboot_enable parameter
> >
> > From: Takashi Iwai <[email protected]>
> >
> > Use strtobool can allow 'secureboot_enable=yes', it's more user-friendly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lee, Chun-Yi <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > kernel/cred.c | 5 +++--
> > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/cred.c b/kernel/cred.c
> > index 3f5be65..70897a2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/cred.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cred.c
> > @@ -633,9 +633,10 @@ void __init secureboot_enable()
> > /* Dummy Secure Boot enable option to fake out UEFI SB=1 */
> > static int __init secureboot_enable_opt(char *str)
> > {
> > - int sb_enable = !!simple_strtol(str, NULL, 0);
> > - if (sb_enable)
> > + bool sb_enable;
> > + if (!strtobool(str, &sb_enable) && sb_enable)
> > secureboot_enable();
> > +
> > return 1;
> > }
> > __setup("secureboot_enable=", secureboot_enable_opt);
>
> This seems like a good change to me. If you don't mind, I'll rework the
> existing patch to do this since it hasn't been accepted upstream yet and
> give Takashi-san and you appropriate credit in the commit log.
>
> josh
>
Thanks for your review and feel free add to your reworked patch.
Joey Lee