linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] efi: Get the secure boot status [ver #5]

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 08 Dec 2016 17:31:13 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, matt@...eblueprint.co.uk,
        ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] efi: Get the secure boot status [ver #5]

Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de> wrote:

> > +out_efi_err:
> > +	pr_efi_err(sys_table_arg, "Could not determine UEFI Secure Boot status.\n");
> > +	if (status == EFI_NOT_FOUND)
> > +		return efi_secureboot_mode_disabled;
> > +	return efi_secureboot_mode_unknown;
> > +}
> 
> In the out_efi_err path, the if-statement needs to come before the
> pr_efi_err() call.  Otherwise it would be a change of behaviour for
> ARM to what we have now.

As I understand it, if the BIOS is an EFI BIOS, these variables must exist -
in which case I would argue that the pr_efi_err-statement should be before the
if-statement.

David