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. David -- 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
