From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE0D1C43381 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 22:48:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B162A20675 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 22:48:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726250AbfCGWsj (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Mar 2019 17:48:39 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:46272 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726234AbfCGWsi (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Mar 2019 17:48:38 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x27MiUbR080771 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 17:48:37 -0500 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2r39ury3bb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 07 Mar 2019 17:48:36 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 22:48:35 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 7 Mar 2019 22:48:30 -0000 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x27MmTOd61145110 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 Mar 2019 22:48:29 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A60C111C058; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 22:48:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644B711C04A; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 22:48:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.80.93.211]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 22:48:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/ima: retry detecting secure boot mode From: Mimi Zohar To: Matthew Garrett , Justin Forbes Cc: linux-integrity , LSM List , linux-efi , Linux Kernel Mailing List , David Howells , Seth Forshee , kexec@lists.infradead.org, Nayna Jain Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2019 17:48:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <1542657371-7019-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com> <1542657371-7019-4-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19030722-4275-0000-0000-000003185441 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19030722-4276-0000-0000-00003826AFEF Message-Id: <1551998897.31706.461.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-03-07_14:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1903070149 Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Thu, 2019-03-07 at 14:44 -0800, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 2:38 PM Justin Forbes wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 4:29 PM Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:57 AM Mimi Zohar wrote: > >> > > >> > The secure boot mode may not be detected on boot for some reason (eg. > >> > buggy firmware). This patch attempts one more time to detect the > >> > secure boot mode. > >> > >> Do we have cases where this has actually been seen? I'm not sure what > >> the circumstances are that would result in this behaviour. > > > > > > We have never seen it in practice, though we only ever do anything with it with x86, so it is possible that some other platforms maybe? > > I'm not sure that it buys us anything to check this in both the boot > stub and the running kernel. If a platform *is* giving us different > results, anything else relying on the information from the boot stub > is also going to be broken, so we should do this centrally rather than > in the IMA code. I added this last attempt because I'm seeing this on my laptop, with some older, buggy firmware. Mimi