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  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]
Date:   Wed, 6 May 2020 11:36:49 -0700
From:   Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
To:     Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>
Cc:     The development of GNU GRUB <grub-devel@....org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        trenchboot-devel@...glegroups.com,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        alexander.burmashev@...cle.com,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        "Daniel P. Smith" <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>,
        eric.snowberg@...cle.com,
        Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
        kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        krystian.hebel@...eb.com, lukasz.hawrylko@...ux.intel.com,
        michal.zygowski@...eb.com,
        "Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko" <phcoder@...il.com>,
        pirot.krol@...eb.com, Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
        Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [GRUB PATCH RFC 12/18] i386/efi: Report UEFI Secure Boot status
 to the Linux kernel

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 6:33 AM Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 10:29:05AM -0700, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 4:25 PM Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Otherwise the kernel does not know its state and cannot enable various
> > > security features depending on UEFI Secure Boot.
> >
> > I think this needs more context. If the kernel is loaded via the EFI
> > boot stub, the kernel is aware of the UEFI secure boot state. Why
> > duplicate this functionality in order to avoid the EFI stub?
>
> It seems to me that this issue was discussed here [1] and here [2].
> So, if you want me to improve the commit message I am OK with that.

Yes, I think just providing an explanation for why it's currently
necessary for you to duplicate this is reasonable.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists