linux-kernel - Re: [patch] x86: Introduce BOOT_EFI and BOOT

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:	Mon, 03 Mar 2014 09:49:14 +0800
From:	"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
CC:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	"alan@...ux.intel.com" <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Len.Brown@...el.com,
	Adam Williamson <awilliam@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86: Introduce BOOT_EFI and BOOT_CF9 into the reboot
 sequence loop

On 2014/3/3 9:47, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> We are not removing BOOT_BIOS... whether or not we have it on buy default is another matter.

Right, I meant I remove BOOT_BIOS from my second patch if needed.

Thanks,
-Aubrey

> 
> On March 2, 2014 5:36:02 PM PST, "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On 2014/3/3 8:18, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On 03/02/2014 04:07 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 07:23:06AM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Windows doesn't do because there is no 32/64 mixed windows and EFI
>> on
>>>>> the planet. Since the silicon is actually 64 bit, I failed to see a
>>>>> reason to refuse the user install 64bit linux on it. So we
>> encountered a
>>>>> case windows didn't.
>>>>
>>>> And we'll call the 32 bit EFI call, so what's the problem?
>>
>> No problem after Fleming's mixed mode is landed.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> So, you didn't mention BOOT_BIOS, if you don't want to add
>> BOOT_BIOS,
>>>>> and you also don't like DMI entires, how do you want to deal with
>> the
>>>>> machines requiring BOOT_BIOS to reboot their machine?
>>>>
>>>> I was planning on ignoring them.
>>>>
>>
>> Well, I'm fine to ignore BOOT_BIOS because I don't have one in hand,
>> but
>> I'll bother you again with the same logic when I have one, heihei.
>> Do you need me to refine the patch to remove BOOT_BIOS?
>>
>>>
>>> I suspect we'll never get away from having a DMI table, if nothing
>> else
>>> because we can't test enough, but the current situation where it
>> seems
>>> like we need to add every since Dell box to the DMI table is clearly
>> broken.
>>>
>>> 	-hpa
>>>
>> Agree, definitely.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Aubrey
> 

--
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/