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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <1552323292.6100.45.camel@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <1552323292.6100.45.camel@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:20:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CACdnJustD1fvBYsE=zHE85ZSrKwpArW=_jhRDyhDngdDRNOXJA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/ima: retry detecting secure boot mode
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 9:55 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-03-08 at 09:51 -0800, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > 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.

Ah, sorry, when you said that you saw this with older firmware I
thought that meant that newer firmware fixed it. What machine are you
testing on?