[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <13280.1486138918@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 16:21:58 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.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 7/7] efi: Print the secure boot status in x86 setup_arch() [ver #7]
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI)) {
>
> Shouldn't this be a runtime check?
Interesting question. The original patch I was working from had a #ifdef
here. Possibly it doesn't need to be there at all. We could rely entirely on
the value of boot_params.secure_boot.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists