linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] efi: Get the secure boot status [ver #2]

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: <20161123134219.GH24624@leverpostej>
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2016 13:42:19 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     lukas@...ner.de, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] efi: Get the secure boot status [ver #2]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:25:57AM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> 
> > 	int secure_boot = efi_get_secureboot(sys_table);
> > 
> > 	if (secure_boot > 0)
> > 		pr_efi(sys_table, "UEFI Secure Boot is enabled.\n");
> > 	if (secure_boot < 0)
> > 		pr_efi_err(sys_table,
> > 			"could not determine UEFI Secure Boot status.\n");
> 
> In which case, should this be moved into efi_get_secureboot() and it return a
> bool?

That would make sense to me, provided we're only likely to call that
once (and only log once).

I guess it would also make sense to change the latter case to soemthing
like:
	
	Could not determine UEFI Secure Boot status. Assuming enabled.

... so as to make it clear what the effect is.

Thanks,
Mark.