linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/16] efi: Add EFI_SECURE

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]

Message-ID: <6528.1479490081@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2016 17:28:01 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        matthew.garrett@...ula.com,
        "linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/16] efi: Add EFI_SECURE_BOOT bit

Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:

> > @@ -1164,6 +1164,7 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> >         if (boot_params.secure_boot &&
> >             IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI_SECURE_BOOT_LOCK_DOWN)) {
> >                 lock_kernel_down();
> > +               set_bit(EFI_SECURE_BOOT, &efi.flags);
> 
> Why is this x86 only?

It probably doesn't really need to be, but that's what the patches I ported
do.

> And why is this bit only set if CONFIG_EFI_SECURE_BOOT_LOCK_DOWN is enabled?

Actually, the EFI_SECURE_BOOT bit should probably be set outside of that
portion of the if-condition.

David