On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:55 AM, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > 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. >> >> Ok. >> >> IIUC, that x86 patch was never upstream, so is there any need to follow >> that example? > > Whilst that may be true, that doesn't mean a lot of people aren't using it. A conforming implementation that supports secure boot should always return those variables without error. If they're not present (which is valid for x86 systems - many predate the feature) then assuming Secure Boot is disabled is correct. The question of what to do in the event of other errors is more open, but it wouldn't surprise me if there are implementations that return non-spec errors for missing variables under certain circumstances. -- 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
