The comment in linux_exec() was based on Lennart's comment in
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/37372#discussion_r2142340582, but
shortened. The original wording is more direct and at least for me easier to
grok, so adjust the comment to be more verbose again.
Also, move the comment from shim_loader_available() to the place where it used.
This function is for checking if the new thing is available, no need to describe
the old thing there.
Since shim 16, it is not possible anymore to override the security arch
protocol to avoid signature check and measurements.
Also on Dell servers, EFI_SECURITY2_ARCH_PROTOCOL is not implemented, so
unexpected measurements on PCR 4 were still happening.
This just loads and run the kernel pe. We verify that there is no relocation
needed. Also for simplification, we assume and verify that the base address is
expected to be 0.
I very much dislike the approach in which we were mixing Linux and UEFI C code
in the same subdirectory. No code was shared between two environments. This
layout was created in e7dd673d1e, with the
justification of "being more consistent with the rest of systemd", but I don't
see how it's supposed to be so.
Originally, when the C code was just a single bootctl.c file, this wasn't so
bad. But over time the userspace code grew quite a bit. With the moves done in
previuos commits, the intermediate subdirectory is now empty except for the
efi/ subdir, and this additional subdirectory level doesn't have a good
justification. The components is called "systemd-boot", not "systemd-efi", and
we can remove one level of indentation.
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Yu Watanabe
Valentin David
Daan De Meyer