Re: [PATCH 4/6] efi: Get the secure boot status [ver #2]
From: Mark Rutland
Date: Wed Nov 23 2016 - 10:03:36 EST
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 02:13:28PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > if (secure_boot < 0)
> > > > pr_efi_err(sys_table,
> > > > "could not determine UEFI Secure Boot status.\n");
> > >
> > > In which case, should this be moved into efi_get_secureboot() and it return a
> > > bool?
> > That would make sense to me, provided we're only likely to call that
> > once (and only log once).
> > I guess it would also make sense to change the latter case to soemthing
> > like:
> > Could not determine UEFI Secure Boot status. Assuming enabled.
> > ... so as to make it clear what the effect is.
> Actually, the two arches have a different interpretation on how to deal with
> an error. Matthew Garrett's original x86 patch assumes that if we get an
> error when trying to read SecureBoot and SetupMode that we're *not* in secure
> mode, but ARM assumes the opposite.
IIUC, that x86 patch was never upstream, so is there any need to follow
that example? Was there a rationale for that, or can we simply follow
the upstream ARM example?
Perhaps it's best to ask Matthew?