linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc/pseries: detect secure and trusted boot state of the system.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1594739258.12900.164.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jul 2020 11:07:38 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>, Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Cc:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc/pseries: detect secure and trusted boot
 state of the system.

On Tue, 2020-07-14 at 16:38 +1000, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> Hi Nayna,
> 
> Thanks! Would you be able to fold in some of the information from my
> reply to v1 into the changelog? Until we have public PAPR release with
> it, that information is the extent of the public documentation. It would
> be good to get it into the git log rather than just floating around in
> the mail archives!
> 
> A couple of small nits:
> 
> > +	if (enabled)
> > +		goto out;
> > +
> > +	if (!of_property_read_u32(of_root, "ibm,secure-boot", &secureboot)) {
> > +		if (secureboot)
> > +			enabled = (secureboot > 1) ? true : false;
> 
> Your tests double up here - you don't need both the 'if' statement and
> the 'secureboot > 1' ternary operator.
> 
> Just
> 
> +	if (!of_property_read_u32(of_root, "ibm,secure-boot", &secureboot)) {
> +		enabled = (secureboot > 1) ? true : false;
> 
> or even
> 
> +	if (!of_property_read_u32(of_root, "ibm,secure-boot", &secureboot)) {
> +		enabled = (secureboot > 1);
> 
> would work.

I haven't been following this thread, which might be the reason I'm
missing something here.  The patch description should explain why the
test is for "(secureboot > 1)", rather than a fixed number.

thanks,

Mimi