Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/ima: retry detecting secure boot mode
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
Cc:     Justin Forbes <jforbes@redhat.com>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>,
        kexec@lists.infradead.org, Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:54:52 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CACdnJut3Y7CogvgtNsEcrEtA1WOxSb9OWP_wZ=3xNgCft2oeDw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1542657371-7019-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com>
         <1542657371-7019-4-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com>
         <CACdnJusqHZ1OLJD1baN=fXK9KE+bSqzB4OUbmLXH5-qZNrQXJg@mail.gmail.com>
         <CAFbkSA39RwB+E4SaG_ueu-_B=y7JytEYKw1+eXNQ_eCuMfnv=g@mail.gmail.com>
         <CACdnJuuHmK0qKjMxxonRYDUCatxqs930QGNQmREhRjimpNKzYw@mail.gmail.com>
         <1551998897.31706.461.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <CACdnJusiLSCyqx7NX5bkpFr2N5YjBt_h3miOgkbey-Zndc3+Kg@mail.gmail.com>
         <1552052377.4134.23.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <CACdnJut3Y7CogvgtNsEcrEtA1WOxSb9OWP_wZ=3xNgCft2oeDw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <1552323292.6100.45.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2019-03-08 at 09:51 -0800, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:40 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2019-03-07 at 14:50 -0800, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Is the issue that it gives incorrect results on the first read, or is
> > > the issue that it gives incorrect results before ExitBootServices() is
> > > called? If the former then we should read twice in the boot stub, if
> > > the latter then we should figure out a way to do this immediately
> > > after ExitBootServices() instead.
> >
> > Detecting the secure boot mode isn't the problem.  On boot, I am
> > seeing "EFI stub: UEFI Secure Boot is enabled", but setup_arch() emits
> > "Secure boot could not be determined".
> >
> > In efi_main() the secure_boot mode is initially unset, so
> > efi_get_secureboot() is called.  efi_get_secureboot() returns the
> > secure_boot mode correctly as enabled.  The problem seems to be in
> > saving the secure_boot mode for later use.
> 
> Hm. And this only happens on certain firmware versions? If something's
> stepping on boot_params then we have bigger problems.

I was seeing this problem before and after updating the system
firmware on my laptop last summer.  If updating the firmware had
resolved the problem, I wouldn't have included this patch.

Mimi