On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:55 AM, David Howells [off-list ref] wrote:

Mark Rutland [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

Actually, the two arches have a different interpretation on how to deal
with an error.  Matthew Garrett's original x86 patch assumes that if we
get an error when trying to read SecureBoot and SetupMode that we're *not*
in secure mode, but ARM assumes the opposite.

Ok.

IIUC, that x86 patch was never upstream, so is there any need to follow
that example?

Whilst that may be true, that doesn't mean a lot of people aren't using it.

A conforming implementation that supports secure boot should always
return those variables without error. If they're not present (which is
valid for x86 systems - many predate the feature) then assuming Secure
Boot is disabled is correct. The question of what to do in the event
of other errors is more open, but it wouldn't surprise me if there are
implementations that return non-spec errors for missing variables
under certain circumstances.