From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <g.goller@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B88AF9E501
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:20:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9B5FE7C6F
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:20:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:20:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AC7E344B4F
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:20:21 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <c47bb9d7-3a7e-4bcb-bfdc-2fb07faa717d@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 14:20:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20231127101644.74160-1-g.goller@proxmox.com>
 <20231127101644.74160-2-g.goller@proxmox.com>
 <gxpphkp3qcaztijq4hcoozfybpuwl2e7z66ssgg2mabjxi327f@tpox4aiekttg>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <gxpphkp3qcaztijq4hcoozfybpuwl2e7z66ssgg2mabjxi327f@tpox4aiekttg>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.202 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
 information. [uefi.org]
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH v3 proxmox 1/3] sys: add function to get
 boot_mode
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 13:20:22 -0000

Thanks for the review!

On 11/27/23 13:48, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 11:16:42AM +0100, Gabriel Goller wrote:
>> +// Returns the current bootmode (BIOS, EFI, or EFI(Secure Boot))
>> +pub fn boot_mode() -> BootModeInformation {
>> +    lazy_static::lazy_static!(
>> +        static ref BOOT_MODE: Mutex<Option<BootModeInformation>> = Mutex::new(None);
>> +    );
>> +
>> +    let mut last = BOOT_MODE.lock().unwrap();
>> +    let value = last.or_else(|| {
>> +        if std::path::Path::new("/sys/firmware/efi").exists() {
>> +            // Check if SecureBoot is enabled
>> +            // Attention: this file is not seekable!
>> +            // Spec: https://uefi.org/specs/UEFI/2.10/03_Boot_Manager.html?highlight=8be4d#globally-defined-variables
>> +            let efivar = std::fs::File::open(
>> +                "/sys/firmware/efi/efivars/SecureBoot-8be4df61-93ca-11d2-aa0d-00e098032b8c",
>> +            );
>> +            if let Ok(mut file) = efivar {
>> +                let mut buf = [0; 5];
>> +                let Ok(_) = file.read_exact(&mut buf) else {
>> +                    return Some(BootModeInformation::Efi(SecureBoot::Disabled));
>> +                };
>> +                if buf[4..] == [1] {
> This doesn't need to be a range comparison, just use `buf[4] == 1`
> Or rather,, should we instead use `!= 0`?
> Depending on how we want to treat a "reserved" mode...
Oh, right! I agree with the `buf[4] == 1`.
Hmm I think a more "conservative" matching here is better. A false
negative is better than a false positive imo.