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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no 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 7396ECA9EA0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:46:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E9A021783 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:46:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="rk4+AJ8n" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730387AbfJ1Hqn (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2019 03:46:43 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f44.google.com ([209.85.221.44]:34886 "EHLO mail-wr1-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729695AbfJ1Hqm (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2019 03:46:42 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f44.google.com with SMTP id l10so8707814wrb.2 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 00:46:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AXggoMr6TPefIjruk1V26dPCbcmEQg0JH5FI8IysJRo=; b=rk4+AJ8nyMt28tdWbyvdsOMoDYE+i2ATrZro4GHe2b9n5E8VnXI8G6yl6isooXMS/0 0ftjhVuBwpjkcbSZMGgsmegUrzcWl2QtGaZ/GvMcUIYGZLCAmigKwxADLvyhTZKcI5i9 Y1n9JUau2DYXTbd8hpteGQ9FGG2lW6ADmUpbH83YJepg+ZQQHjZiCkCNdHJVafuuzi+0 Amn2/O3zRrrNLj7WmeVj9gMf6MS82x1Ylpf0Rhif0/I22hjc5HcKsE9a6aWhISoGKri0 Mkwk1e6oua1kBqlSYyHi5PoqvS3XHXj9+g7l3dDohV5cua4JgDRj+dEoxvUkHsij1eug Y3Vw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AXggoMr6TPefIjruk1V26dPCbcmEQg0JH5FI8IysJRo=; b=tq4m1LFmH2PZSvTwGAfOigsBB7v3yNtaWl2D9qH/6gB3A7eMiVwHYREl0TgA+RUYG7 B/VokfMyXuBCPET3tfKb6wR16G1Ny1Od3FtRz9TGsMrq0TYN0Ry2hiTGbUJ4vpcojkg1 lXkwnLR4OIblfGxmtjUHhxpnKOkgIb3KeyDwxsuuz0dBD22x0NaeHLMYMS+HGSQxMERq pHmaGRXP7siZL54dKEQLE5owoDdhBb9gDA54IQEi+jYjuTKBoElo5d7ud5o0cnWxGyMe FluqqDmTQpybElYRPZkEaaxsrJbKf4oreaFwqVvwSyHCnjogJE/Ex9y5hTbB4Et/GCDK jE/g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW6WpFYtTY1FIxd4zD81EZgB1n7A92LcT7SBE2kw7TWcBPn9I2j fvKzz60xApRrv4QTNtui4ApAEcaHMOLdcBo5tGFXgw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxPjdRrBCat/z+Y/ktrD5+eP35/VUhqqOX1pS13q8vTbicHNHyK+rQT3KV0nKVP0RtoZzHxauWa6NuoG3eg0wU= X-Received: by 2002:adf:9f08:: with SMTP id l8mr13163484wrf.325.1572248798818; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 00:46:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191005113753.GA77634@light.dominikbrodowski.net> <20191028072036.GA113601@owl.dominikbrodowski.net> In-Reply-To: <20191028072036.GA113601@owl.dominikbrodowski.net> From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:46:28 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: efistub: EFI_RNG_PROTOCOL on Dell Inc. Latitude 7390 To: Dominik Brodowski Cc: Mario Limonciello , linux-efi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-efi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org Hello Dominik, On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 08:30, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > Ard, Mario, > > in theory, invoking EFI_RNG_PROTOCOL on a Dell Inc. Latitude 7390/09386V, > BIOS 1.9.2 04/03/2019, should work fine as the system provides EFI v2.60. > Using my patch from a few weeks ago[1], efi_random_get_seed() is called from > arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c::efi_main(). In efi_random_get_seed(), the > calls to > > status = efi_call_early(locate_protocol, &rng_proto, NULL, > (void **)&rng); > > and > > status = efi_call_early(allocate_pool, EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_DATA, > sizeof(*seed) + EFI_RANDOM_SEED_SIZE, > (void **)&seed); > > succeed. However, > > status = rng->get_rng(rng, &rng_algo_raw, EFI_RANDOM_SEED_SIZE, > seed->bits); > > returns EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER, though I can't see why one of these > parameters is invalid. The UEFI spec defines the conditions under which this function may return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER as """ RNGValue is null or RNGValueLength is zero. """ > When trying to use the default rng algorithm (by > modifying the test to "(status != EFI_SUCCESS)"), > > status = rng->get_rng(rng, NULL, EFI_RANDOM_SEED_SIZE, > seed->bits); > > the call doesn't seem to return. > > Any ideas? > Try running this from the UEFI shell: http://people.linaro.org/~ard.biesheuvel/RngTest-X64.efi