On Tue, 2018-04-03 at 16:39 +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> Initialize UEFI secure boot state during dom0 boot. Otherwise the
> kernel
> may not even know that it runs on secure boot enabled platform.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/xen/efi.c | 57
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/secureboot.c | 3 ++
> 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/efi.c b/arch/x86/xen/efi.c
> index a18703b..1804b27 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/efi.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/efi.c
> @@ -115,6 +115,61 @@ static efi_system_table_t __init
> *xen_efi_probe(void)
> return &efi_systab_xen;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Determine whether we're in secure boot mode.
> + *
> + * Please keep the logic in sync with
> + * drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/secureboot.c:efi_get_secureboot().
> + */
> +static enum efi_secureboot_mode xen_efi_get_secureboot(void)
> +{
> + static efi_guid_t efi_variable_guid =
> EFI_GLOBAL_VARIABLE_GUID;
> + static efi_guid_t shim_guid = EFI_SHIM_LOCK_GUID;
> + efi_status_t status;
> + u8 moksbstate, secboot, setupmode;
> + unsigned long size;
> +
> + size = sizeof(secboot);
> + status = efi.get_variable(L"SecureBoot", &efi_variable_guid,
> + NULL, &size, &secboot);
> +
> + if (status == EFI_NOT_FOUND)
> + return efi_secureboot_mode_disabled;
> +
> + if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
> + goto out_efi_err;
> +
> + size = sizeof(setupmode);
> + status = efi.get_variable(L"SetupMode", &efi_variable_guid,
> + NULL, &size, &setupmode);
> +
> + if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
> + goto out_efi_err;
> +
> + if (secboot == 0 || setupmode == 1)
> + return efi_secureboot_mode_disabled;
> +
> + /* See if a user has put the shim into insecure mode. */
> + size = sizeof(moksbstate);
> + status = efi.get_variable(L"MokSBStateRT", &shim_guid,
> + NULL, &size, &moksbstate);
> +
> + /* If it fails, we don't care why. Default to secure. */
> + if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
> + goto secure_boot_enabled;
> +
> + if (moksbstate == 1)
> + return efi_secureboot_mode_disabled;
> +
> + secure_boot_enabled:
> + pr_info("UEFI Secure Boot is enabled.\n");
> + return efi_secureboot_mode_enabled;
> +
> + out_efi_err:
> + pr_err("Could not determine UEFI Secure Boot status.\n");
> + return efi_secureboot_mode_unknown;
> +}
> +
This looks like a bad idea: you're duplicating the secure boot check in
drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/secureboot.c
Which is an implementation of policy. If we have to have policy in the
kernel, it should really only be in one place to prevent drift; why
can't you simply use the libstub efi_get_secureboot() so we're not
duplicating the implementation of policy?
James
--
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
