On Mon, 30 Jan, at 02:01:32PM, David Howells wrote: > Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Matt argues, however, that boot_params->secure_boot should be propagated from > > > the bootloader and if the bootloader wants to set it, then we should skip the > > > check in efi_main() and go with the bootloader's opinion. This is something > > > we probably want to do with kexec() so that the lockdown state is propagated > > > there. > > > > Actually what I was arguing for was that if the boot loader wants to > > set it and bypass the EFI boot stub, e.g. by going via the legacy > > 64-bit entry point, startup_64, then we should allow that as well as > > setting the flag in the EFI boot stub. > > That brings up another question: Should the non-EFI entry points clear the > secure_boot mode flag and set a default? There are no non-EFI boot entry points. EFI worked before we added the EFI boot stub. The boot stub just provides new features (and allows us to bundle firmware/boot fixes workarounds with kernel updates). This is exactly why we should allow, or at least not actively prohibit, the boot loader to set ->secure_boot and jump to the old entry point if it wants to do that. -- 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
