Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > No, I am fine with keeping this as a single series. I don't want > anything under drivers/efi to imply policy regarding lockdown. Kernel > lockdown should be a feature that lives somewhere else, and which > contains a CONFIG_ option that implies 'lockdown is enabled by default > when UEFI secure boot is detected.' The code that gets added to > drivers/efi should only concern itself with establishing whether > secure boot is in effect or not (and can hence be enabled > unconditionally) > ... > So what I would prefer is to separate this from the EFI code, In that case I don't know where to connect the UEFI secure boot with the lockdown code. I was under the impression that you wanted the switch-statement that I had in x86 setup.c moved to the efi code (as I've done in patch 1). Was I wrong in that assessment and that you actually wanted it, say, in security? I don't think that the non-EFI core code should know about UEFI secure boot mode. Either the arch needs to implement the connection or the EFI code needs to implement it. In the former is preferred, I should drop patch 1. > ... and perhaps print something like > > lockdown: Kernel lockdown policy in effect due to xxx I'm okay with printing that instead. > and print a subsequent line for every lockdown feature that is enabled, e.g., > > lockdown: disabling MSRs > lockdown: disabling hibernate support That could add a lot of lines to the boot output:-/ 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
