[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17565.1480077303@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 12:35:03 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] efi: Get the secure boot status [ver #3]
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
> Yes. In pre-2.6, DeployedMode is not a reserved name, and so it may be
> possible for someone to slip in a DeployedMode=0 on a secure boot
> enabled system to trick the kernel into thinking lockdown should be
> disabled.
How does one get the version number? Unfortunately, searching the document
for 'version' doesn't help as every page has that in the footer:-/
> > + if (val == 1)
> > + return 0;
>
> I think the logic is the wrong way around here. Secure Boot is enabled
> if SecureBoot=1 and SetupMode=0, unless DeployedMode=0. So you should
> return 0 here if val == 0, but only when running on 2.6 or later.
Good point.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists