Re: internal structure of EFI_TLS_CA_CERTIFICATE_VARIABLE

[Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>]

On 03/28/18 13:10, Zeng, Star wrote:
> Laszlo,
> 
> There should be some places need to care about. I also need to check the detail.
> 
> I am ok to make the patch if it is not so urgent.

Thank you, Star!

I'll keep it on my TODO list as well, and I might post something if I
get there first.

Thanks!
Laszlo


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laszlo Ersek [mailto:lersek@redhat.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 6:07 PM
> To: Zeng, Star <star.zeng@intel.com>; Fu, Siyuan <siyuan.fu@intel.com>; Wu, Jiaxin <jiaxin.wu@intel.com>
> Cc: edk2-devel-01 <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>; Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2] internal structure of EFI_TLS_CA_CERTIFICATE_VARIABLE
> 
> Hi Star,
> 
> thanks for following up; comments below:
> 
> On 03/28/18 05:28, Zeng, Star wrote:
>> Is there a PCD pointers to the siglist?
> 
> We discussed that earlier, but because HttpDxe -- which consumes the certificate list -- is a UEFI driver, we decided that it should not consume dynamic PCDs. The alternative (specified in the UEFI spec) was variables.
> 
> The earlier discussion wasn't exactly about the trusted CA cert list.
> Instead, it was about the trusted cipher algo list. However, both of these knobs pose the same "info channel" questions. So here's the link into the cipher algo list discussion:
> 
> http://mid.mail-archive.com/895558F6EA4E3B41AC93A00D163B72741637DE9E@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com
> 
>> For adding PcdMaxVolatileVariableSize: non-authenticated, volatile, I think it is acceptable if there are use cases.
> 
> Thank you for accepting the idea in theory :)
> 
> Do you think it is a simple change? Or is it intrusive?
> 
> If it is intrusive, then I'd prefer if one of the variable driver maintainers wrote the patch. It's a complex driver and there can be hidden assumptions and relationships that I might miss.
> 
> If it's a reasonably simple change then I'm happy to work on it.
> 
> Thanks!
> Laszlo
>