linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] efi: an sysfs interface for user to update efi firmware

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:	Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:20:00 +0200
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	"Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com>,
	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	Ong Boon Leong <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>,
	Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
	Roy Franz <roy.franz@...aro.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] efi: an sysfs interface for user to update efi
 firmware

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:44:56PM +0800, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> >> From: "Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com>
> >>
> >> Introducing a kernel module to expose capsule loader interface
> >> for user to upload capsule binaries. This module leverage the
> >> request_firmware_direct_full_path() to obtain the binary at a
> >> specific path input by user.
> >>
> >> Example method to load the capsule binary:
> >> echo -n "/path/to/capsule/binary" > /sys/devices/platform/efi_capsule_loader/capsule_loader
> >
> > Ick, why not just have the firmware file location present, and copy it
> > to the sysfs file directly from userspace, instead of this two-step
> > process?
> 
> Because it's not at all obvious how error handling should work in that case.

I don't understand how the error handling is any different.  The kernel
ends up copying the data in through the firmware interface both ways, we
just aren't creating yet-another-firmware-path in the system.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/