Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933592AbcKWACd (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Nov 2016 19:02:33 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54630 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751245AbcKWACb (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Nov 2016 19:02:31 -0500 Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20161122203058.GA1844@wunner.de> References: <20161122203058.GA1844@wunner.de> <20161122104401.GC1552@wunner.de> <20161117123731.GA11573@wunner.de> <147977472115.6360.13015228230799369019.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <7199.1479826047@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Lukas Wunner Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Matthew Garrett , linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] efi: Get the secure boot status MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <17873.1479859347.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:02:27 +0000 Message-ID: <17874.1479859347@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:02:30 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 792 Lines: 22 Lukas Wunner wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:47:27PM +0000, David Howells wrote: > > Lukas Wunner wrote: > > > The "out_efi_err" portion differs from the previous version of this > > > patch. Setting a __u8 to a negative value, is this really what you > > > want? > > > > Eh? efi_get_secureboot() returns an int as before. The out_efi_err: > > portions are exactly the same: > > By "the previous version of this patch" I was referring to your > submission of Nov 16, not the existing code in the kernel. > Your patch didn't contain the out_efi_err portion. > > You're assigning a negative value to boot_params->secure_boot > (which is declared __u8). Ah, yes. Sorry, you confused me by specifying a comparison against the last version. David