linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] efi: Pass secure boot mode to kernel [ver #6]

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: <CAKv+Gu9+i=QvNYN9SbphzG2Ye6aY=9DvAd+TnWN_Bn76LS8kMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:15:50 +0000
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.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>,
        keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] efi: Pass secure boot mode to kernel [ver #6]

On 11 January 2017 at 15:05, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 11 January 2017 at 15:01, Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Dec, at 12:30:08PM, David Howells wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's a set of patches that can determine the secure boot state of the
>>> UEFI BIOS and pass that along to the main kernel image.  This involves
>>> generalising ARM's efi_get_secureboot() function and making it mixed-mode
>>> safe.
>>
>> This version looks OK to me apart from the couple of comments I made.
>>
>> Ard, did you take a look? In particular some boot testing on ARM/arm64
>> would be useful. x86 boots fine in both regular and mixed mode but
>> I've only tested without Secure Boot enabled.
>
> I did take a look at these patches (and commented on them) as they
> were coming in, but I haven't yet gone through them as thoroughly as I
> should. I will test them on ARM/arm64 as well.

Apologies for the tardiness. I intend to look into these tomorrow.