linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 2/3] Revert "x86, efivars: firmware bug workarounds should be in platform code"

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:	Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:24:11 +0100
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To:	Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
CC:	matt.fleming@...el.com, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/3] Revert "x86, efivars: firmware bug workarounds
 should be in platform code"

On 10/04/13 18:46, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This reverts commit a6e4d5a03e9e3587e88aba687d8f225f4f04c792. Doing this
> workaround properly requires us to work within the variable code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c | 25 -------------------------
>  drivers/firmware/efivars.c  | 18 +++++++++++++++---
>  include/linux/efi.h         |  9 +--------
>  3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)

Does it really? Why can't you just hook into the get_next_variable() and
set_variable() functions in arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c?

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/