From: phlamorim@riseup.net
To: devel@edk2.groups.io
Subject: Interpretation of specification
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:12:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <30436.1571850762845158639@groups.io> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1625 bytes --]
The following commit on edk2 added a new a check on format of Authenticated variables: https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/commit/c035e37335ae43229d7e68de74a65f2c01ebc0af ( https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/commit/c035e37335ae43229d7e68de74a65f2c01ebc0af )
After this point some implementations started to have differences in the validation of the format of Authenticator Descriptor as we can se here: https://blog.hansenpartnership.com/uefi-secure-boot/#comment-48351
This case make me reach the following discussions: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=586 where i have seen lots of tools(more on linux) dont generate the correct format to use on the payload for TimeBased authenticated variables, at this time i was just trying to create a private authenticated variable, first thig which worked is to use this patch: https://patchew.org/EDK2/1525903747.5882.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com/ ( https://patchew.org/EDK2/1525903747.5882.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com/ )
But this patch never got merged, so i realized the tools on linux received upgrades to work properly with Authentication Variables of the edk2, but the same code just dont worked at a real machine using a ASROCK board. So my question is, where the developers should trust to consume the UEFI APIs in a trusted way. Another example i had is the path separator "\" or "/", edk2 uses "/" but the spec allow both, ASROCK mix both sometimes it can lead to some errors. I want to know if i can trust if my code work on EDK2 it should work on all other implementations too, and how we will try to remove these ambiguities of interpretation.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1847 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2019-10-23 17:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-23 17:12 phlamorim [this message]
2019-10-24 12:33 ` [edk2-devel] Interpretation of specification Laszlo Ersek
2019-11-15 18:51 ` phlamorim
2019-11-15 21:32 ` Laszlo Ersek
2019-11-23 4:59 ` Eugene Khoruzhenko
2019-11-23 13:08 ` Paulo Henrique Lacerda de Amorim
2019-11-26 6:08 ` Eugene Khoruzhenko
2019-11-26 15:22 ` Paulo Henrique Lacerda de Amorim
2020-01-03 19:52 ` Eugene Khoruzhenko
2020-01-04 17:17 ` Paulo Henrique Lacerda de Amorim
2020-01-07 18:13 ` Eugene Khoruzhenko
2020-01-08 11:24 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-01-08 19:13 ` James Bottomley
2020-01-09 17:17 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-01-09 17:20 ` James Bottomley
2020-01-10 10:55 ` Laszlo Ersek
2020-01-10 16:04 ` James Bottomley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=30436.1571850762845158639@groups.io \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox