Hi,
> >> If we keep only the 'efi.coco_secret != EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR' check,
> >> we'll get errors from efi_secret for every VM launch that doesn't
> >> undergo LAUNCH_SECRET. I don't think that's good.
> >
> > Well, if that is a common case the module could either print nothing or
> > log KERN_INFO level instead of KERN_ERROR.
>
> What if the user doesn't inject a secret and doesn't include the
> efi_secret module at all in the initrd? request_module("efi_secret")
> will fail.
>
> I can ignore the error code of request_module("efi_secret") but that
> feels bad.
Looking at the error code returned by request_module should help to
figure what happened (module load failed / no secret present / something
else).
But, yes, module load errors are harmless in case there is no secret
present in the first place. Hmm, tricky. I don't see a way to solve
that without duplicating the checks.
I withdraw my objections.
Reviewed-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx>
take care,
Gerd
