On Tue, 11 Aug, at 02:16:25PM, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> +
> +static unsigned long efi_get_rng64(efi_system_table_t *sys_table,
> + void **rng_handle)
> +{
> + const struct efi_config *efi_early = __efi_early();
> + efi_rng_protocol_64 *rng = NULL;
> + efi_guid_t rng_proto = EFI_RNG_PROTOCOL_GUID;
> + u64 *handles = (u64 *)(unsigned long)rng_handle;
> + efi_status_t status;
> + unsigned long rng_number;
> +
> + status = efi_call_early(handle_protocol, handles[0],
> + &rng_proto, (void **)&rng);
> + if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
> + efi_printk(sys_table, "Failed to get EFI_RNG_PROTOCOL handles\n");
> +
> + if (status == EFI_SUCCESS && rng) {
> + status = efi_early->call((unsigned long)rng->get_rng, rng, NULL,
> + sizeof(rng_number), &rng_number);
Actually, one thing just occurred to me - you're not passing an
RNGAlgorithm value and are relying upon the firmware's default
implementation.
I don't think that's a safe bet, the default could be anything and
might vary across implementations.
Can we do a little better here and pick a "preferred" algorithm
instead of the default?
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
