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=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL 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 4B308C10F06 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 19:20:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2135E2147C for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 19:20:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="Jnzq6KMd" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728102AbfCKTUZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:20:25 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f68.google.com ([209.85.166.68]:41505 "EHLO mail-io1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727891AbfCKTUY (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:20:24 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f68.google.com with SMTP id v10so3749555iom.8 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:20:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CgiadYIru6QemLmL1/wWY3rmCAqxL3UBWIQeAnIyE60=; b=Jnzq6KMd1T9lf0cWn392R/dsbT3wN7YHKsBaJcPwmFj6g/5IGMczjKWWnjktBj7PmZ uRNZpWKPhmxbkNw41H5CAFFlersAOcfAoj4zzXP/S3CJ5R21fIPxR3Xs5AAk8rIUZ91q LqpgMM0dTOfBESvDv8XKTGQBHFMLDYgmxfyt2XaiENGVoG2UMIICtNhjZKa92R/oAZwI dhEZaylw1zNCTYBX6hWHGCQ4xN+EEPflE+NA+IQJ+Y+GOZO7on6C4TYrT5pzpsxpQX6v BRLXrk+X0fhZULtLIW5YlFaZHdYaC0suAaxtMWaoo1Z9MmDpQR2aJ4VOshJ9X6zkH37Q 3DWg== 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=CgiadYIru6QemLmL1/wWY3rmCAqxL3UBWIQeAnIyE60=; b=JeP+Des76xPqcMiz72AC2DnWb/bZnLdsdR2mxQBU8vsW93oSZzfTZgrO+Fe26BAbj8 TJqe9oSX9Lr2oLd9oPEjXdZXVtZ9gmNxLuRYkmISlPRPfOREOpu3j88zv/j5p3xnU6E7 Gn8hGZI6rU7nfpq/5Oa60e1cph+5wOsS4G3Nmkr07/kp8InxVawmLV6IbxsitunuChe/ 9fCFPmxePX/JvMXPbqvFfTSJnDDhKsiQ0xng5Kaa6kqE45zj+irZ4KfQf8USceAeaf8o BLYnvPah9Ja9Dv9+yiUfQ/8GlxMqHbOS6Xuh7IvIfhP96A5ZIUl7LhsfzgBZESwt24Tl DdDQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVLFIkCosOyjhxNZO03Cse0qc2fh2ECEiJFw07nz7cIQuduk243 hV9BanCObsCbcfQv6iWn8uVWduh63nbgEoo+vE5wnQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyYlyqTxbdAXsQhzh00O+rcLRcUUaDMzn5WxksfkGq2YX9xbsay3i0vkiyWe1DtXCoaciP9vysRnfBvuoqhY08= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:950f:: with SMTP id r15mr3307807ioj.88.1552332023644; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:20:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1542657371-7019-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com> <1542657371-7019-4-git-send-email-zohar@linux.ibm.com> <1551998897.31706.461.camel@linux.ibm.com> <1552052377.4134.23.camel@linux.ibm.com> <1552323292.6100.45.camel@linux.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1552323292.6100.45.camel@linux.ibm.com> From: Matthew Garrett Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:20:11 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/ima: retry detecting secure boot mode To: Mimi Zohar Cc: Justin Forbes , linux-integrity , LSM List , linux-efi , Linux Kernel Mailing List , David Howells , Seth Forshee , kexec@lists.infradead.org, Nayna Jain Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 9:55 AM Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-03-08 at 09:51 -0800, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Hm. And this only happens on certain firmware versions? If something's > > stepping on boot_params then we have bigger problems. > > I was seeing this problem before and after updating the system > firmware on my laptop last summer. If updating the firmware had > resolved the problem, I wouldn't have included this patch. Ah, sorry, when you said that you saw this with older firmware I thought that meant that newer firmware fixed it. What machine are you testing on?