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: <20161123142440.GJ24624@leverpostej>
References: <20161123142440.GJ24624@leverpostej> <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> <31974.1479910408@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@coreos.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: <2792.1479912933.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:55:33 +0000
Message-ID: <2794.1479912933@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1382
Lines: 42

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

> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 02:13:28PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> IIUC, that x86 patch was never upstream, so is there any need to follow
> that example?

Whilst that may be true, that doesn't mean a lot of people aren't using it.

> Was there a rationale for that, or can we simply follow the upstream ARM
> example?
>
> Perhaps it's best to ask Matthew?

Sure - adding him to the To: line.

David