linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] pstore/ram: Add support for dynamically allocated ramoops memory regions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 4 Jul 2023 08:05:08 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>,
        Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
        Isaac Manjarres <isaacmanjarres@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@...cinc.com>,
        Satya Durga Srinivasu Prabhala <quic_satyap@...cinc.com>,
        Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pstore/ram: Add support for dynamically allocated ramoops
 memory regions

On 22/06/2023 21:51, Elliot Berman wrote:
>> Boot 1.
>> Get address Foo.
>> Crash, write to Foo.
>> Boot 2.
>> Get address Bar, different from Foo.
>> Nothing found at Bar, so nothing populated in pstorefs; crash report from Boot 1 unavailable.
>>
>> I feel like there is something I don't understand about the Foo/Bar addresses in my example.
>>
> 
> I believe this is being added to support the QCOM SoC minidump feature. 
> Mukesh has posted it on the mailing lists here:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/1683133352-10046-1-git-send-email-quic_mojha@quicinc.com/
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/1683133352-10046-10-git-send-email-quic_mojha@quicinc.com/

And since this is coming bypassing DT maintainers and clearly against
Rob's feedback so far, that's a no.

> 
> Mukesh, could you comment whether this patch is wanted for us in the 
> version you have posted? It looks like maybe not based on the commit 
> text in patch #9.


Best regards,
Krzysztof