From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751982AbdBBVef (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:34:35 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com ([74.125.82.54]:38202 "EHLO mail-wm0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751443AbdBBVed (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2017 16:34:33 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 21:34:29 +0000 From: Matt Fleming To: David Howells Cc: ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] efi: Get the secure boot status [ver #7] Message-ID: <20170202213429.GP31613@codeblueprint.co.uk> References: <148587558696.4026.16034622623568539004.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <148587562967.4026.18171897997650345605.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <148587562967.4026.18171897997650345605.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+41 (02bc14ed1569) (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 31 Jan, at 03:13:49PM, David Howells wrote: > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c > index f99978db6b6f..57c2c9c71e53 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c > @@ -988,6 +988,12 @@ struct boot_params *efi_main(struct efi_config *c, > else > setup_boot_services32(efi_early); > > + /* If the boot loader gave us a value for secure_boot then we use that, > + * otherwise we ask the BIOS. > + */ > + if (boot_params->secure_boot == efi_secureboot_mode_unset) > + boot_params->secure_boot = efi_get_secureboot(sys_table); > + > setup_graphics(boot_params); > > setup_efi_pci(boot_params); It's not a big deal, but this multi-line comment format isn't correct. Either Ard or I will fix it up when applying this patch. Same goes for the comment in patch 5. Otherwise this patch looks fine.