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 <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20161123134219.GH24624@leverpostej>
References: <20161123134219.GH24624@leverpostej> <20161123104757.GE24624@leverpostej> <147986054870.13790.8640536414645705863.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <147986057768.13790.3027173260868896792.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <18007.1479900357@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, lukas@wunner.de, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] efi: Get the secure boot status [ver #2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <31973.1479910408.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:13:28 +0000
Message-ID: <31974.1479910408@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 841
Lines: 25

Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:

> > > 	if (secure_boot < 0)
> > > 		pr_efi_err(sys_table,
> > > 			"could not determine UEFI Secure Boot status.\n");
> > 
> > In which case, should this be moved into efi_get_secureboot() and it return a
> > bool?
> 
> That would make sense to me, provided we're only likely to call that
> once (and only log once).
> 
> I guess it would also make sense to change the latter case to soemthing
> like:
> 	
> 	Could not determine UEFI Secure Boot status. Assuming enabled.
> 
> ... so as to make it clear what the effect is.

Actually, the two arches have a different interpretation on how to deal with
an error.  Matthew Garrett's original x86 patch assumes that if we get an
error when trying to read SecureBoot and SetupMode that we're *not* in secure
mode, but ARM assumes the opposite.

David