linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 3/3] efi: Add support for using efivars as a pstore backend

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, 7 Jun 2011 13:52:32 -0700
From:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Matt_Domsch@...l.com" <Matt_Domsch@...l.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 3/3] efi: Add support for using efivars as a pstore
 backend

> Mm. Given that the name of the source is in the file, there's no 
> namespacing issues. In an ideal world I think we'd register all of them 
> in order to provide a better chance of at least one of them ending up in 
> actual persistent storage.

It depends on your level of paranoia - and on what problems
you think might occur. In an ideal world all the back-ends
would work - and we'd just use one until it filled up, and
then move to the next.  in the real world one of the back-ends
might just randomly hang the system - converting a crashing
system into a hung system (which many people consider a more
severe problem). Giving a user an opt-out method for a back-end
looks good in that scenario.

-Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/