Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > @@ -1184,6 +1184,7 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> > pr_info("Secure boot disabled\n");
> > break;
> > case efi_secureboot_mode_enabled:
> > + set_bit(EFI_SECURE_BOOT, &efi.flags);
> > pr_info("Secure boot enabled\n");
> > break;
> > default:
>
> Like I asked when this patch was sent round the last time: is there
> any reason for this not to live in generic code?
It's interpreting the x86 boot_params at this point. I suppose I could move
the following piece:
if (efi_enabled(EFI_BOOT)) {
switch (boot_params.secure_boot) {
case efi_secureboot_mode_disabled:
pr_info("Secure boot disabled\n");
break;
case efi_secureboot_mode_enabled:
pr_info("Secure boot enabled\n");
break;
default:
pr_info("Secure boot could not be determined\n");
break;
}
}
into generic code and pass in boot_params.secure_boot as an argument (since
that's x86-specific I believe. Any suggestions as to where? The same file as
efi_get_secureboot() would seem to be the wrong place since that gets linked
into the bootwrapper. I could put it into drivers/firmware/efi/secure_boot.c
and make that conditional in the Makefile.
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
