linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] efi: Get the secure boot status

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: <17874.1479859347@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:02:27 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] efi: Get the secure boot status

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

> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 02:47:27PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> > Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de> wrote:
> > > The "out_efi_err" portion differs from the previous version of this
> > > patch.  Setting a __u8 to a negative value, is this really what you
> > > want?
> > 
> > Eh?  efi_get_secureboot() returns an int as before.  The out_efi_err:
> > portions are exactly the same:
> 
> By "the previous version of this patch" I was referring to your
> submission of Nov 16, not the existing code in the kernel.
> Your patch didn't contain the out_efi_err portion.
> 
> You're assigning a negative value to boot_params->secure_boot
> (which is declared __u8).

Ah, yes.  Sorry, you confused me by specifying a comparison against the last
version.

David