linux-kernel - Re: [GRUB PATCH RFC 12/18] i386/efi: Report UEFI Secure Boot status to the Linux kernel

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]

Date:   Wed, 6 May 2020 15:33:06 +0200
From:   Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>
To:     Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.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 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.

Additionally, FYI I am not happy with that patch too. So, if somebody
has better idea how to do that then I am happy to discuss it here.

Daniel

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/3/25/982
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/3/26/985