linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/7] efi: Handle secure boot from UEFI-2.6 [ver #7]

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+Gu9ACE23ZMcQN3NpZ_N-CWzg=N6qFVu3_UruH0miPe=izA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Feb 2017 15:02:14 +0000
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     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]

On 1 February 2017 at 15:00, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>> From the OS pov, UserMode and DeployedMode are the same, the only
>> difference being that AuditMode may be entered from UserMode simply by
>> setting the variable to 0x1 (which can only be done before
>> ExitBootServices()). And since AuditMode implies SetupMode (according
>> to the diagram), you are right that we don't need to care about
>> AuditMode either. AFAICT, that makes the entire patch unnecessary, so
>> let's drop it for now.
>
> Okay, in that case, do you want me to reissue and place a signed tag on my
> patchset without that patch, or can you pull the other patches individually?
>

Let's wait for Matt to comment on the x86 bits before reissuing
anything, but if the subsequent patches still apply cleanly, I don't
think there is a need to resend or re-sign.