[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu-=-piH7FQF92T6Yn4KUHLQ-C4CtexWe8D27Tuc3h8KdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 16:23:15 +0000
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: 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]
On 3 February 2017 at 16:21, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
Yes, but only if you are booting via UEFI, no? So perhaps use
efi_enabled(EFI_BOOT) instead?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists