[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <14655.1481218273@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists