Re: [PATCH] tpm: Don't propagate measurement failures to the verifiers layer

On Sun, 2021-02-28 at 23:42 +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > On 2/28/21 7:25 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Sun, 2021-02-28 at 18:58 +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > [snip] > > > > I don't see how that would be the case. For anyone doing measured > > > boot, they can check th

Re: [PATCH] tpm: Don't propagate measurement failures to the verifiers layer

On 2/28/21 7:25 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Sun, 2021-02-28 at 18:58 +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: [snip] >> I don't see how that would be the case. For anyone doing measured >> boot, they can check the TPM event log to verify what has been >> measured during the boot path. > > No,

Re: [PATCH v4 12/13] error: Use format code llu for 64-bit uint bp->blk_prop in grub_error

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:05:09 +0100 Daniel Kiper wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 08:47:13PM -0600, Glenn Washburn wrote: > > For some reason PRIuGRUB_UINT64_T is not expanding to llu, but to > > lu, which causes the format string check to fail. Use literal and > > force cast until this is debugge

Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] error: Do compile-time format string checking on grub_error

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:19:17 +0100 Daniel Kiper wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 08:47:01PM -0600, Glenn Washburn wrote: > > This patch series fixes all compile errors due to format string > > issues on grub_error. This was tested against nearly all supported > > platforms successfully. This is i

Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] error: Use format code PRIxGRUB_UINT64_T for 64-bit arg in grub_error

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 12:48:11 +0100 Daniel Kiper wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 08:47:11PM -0600, Glenn Washburn wrote: > > The macro ELF_R_TYPE does not change the underlying type. Here its > > argument is a 64-bit Elf64_Xword. Make sure the format code matches. > > > > For the riscv architectu

Re: [PATCH v4 08/13] error: Use %p format code for pointer types

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 12:43:06 +0100 Daniel Kiper wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 08:47:09PM -0600, Glenn Washburn wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Glenn Washburn > > --- > > grub-core/loader/i386/pc/linux.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/grub-core/lo

Re: [PATCH] tpm: Don't propagate measurement failures to the verifiers layer

Hello James, On 2/28/21 8:10 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Sun, 2021-02-28 at 00:05 +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> Currently if an EFI firmware fails to do a TPM measurement for a >> file, the error will be propagated to the verifiers framework which >> will prevent it to be opened. >

Re: [PATCH] tpm: Don't propagate measurement failures to the verifiers layer

On Sun, 2021-02-28 at 18:58 +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > [re-sending since I got a 'Recipient server unavailable or busy' > error, sorry if someone gets this email twice] > > Hello James, > > On 2/28/21 8:10 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Sun, 2021-02-28 at 00:05 +0100, Javier Mar

Re: [PATCH] tpm: Don't propagate measurement failures to the verifiers layer

[re-sending since I got a 'Recipient server unavailable or busy' error, sorry if someone gets this email twice] Hello James, On 2/28/21 8:10 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Sun, 2021-02-28 at 00:05 +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> Currently if an EFI firmware fails to do a TPM measureme