[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20578.1485952425@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:33:45 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
"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 6/7] efi: Handle secure boot from UEFI-2.6 [ver #7]
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
> So this patch should take AuditMode into account, but not DeployedMode, i.e.,
>
> SecureBoot == 0x1
> SetupMode == 0x0
> AuditMode == 0x0 (or non-existent)
If we're in audit mode or setup mode SecureBoot==0 and SetupMode==1 according
to the flowchart, so the check of AuditMode would seem redundant.
Further, the checks above don't seem to differentiate deployed mode from user
mode. Should they?
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists