linux-kernel - Re: RFC: WMI Enhancements

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:   Fri, 5 May 2017 18:25:08 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Mario.Limonciello@...l.com
Cc:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: WMI Enhancements

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 5:51 PM,  <Mario.Limonciello@...l.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Darren Hart [mailto:dvhart@...radead.org]
>> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 6:45 PM
>> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@...l.com>
>> Cc: pali.rohar@...il.com; rjw@...ysocki.net; luto@...capital.net;
>> len.brown@...el.com; corentin.chary@...il.com; luto@...nel.org;
>> andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; platform-
>> driver-x86@...r.kernel.org; linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: RFC: WMI Enhancements

> I meant that to say that at least for now Andy's wmi-mof driver should still be merged.
> If something is going to build on top of this to do WBEM tools, they'll need that MOF
> data once someone figures out how to nicely deconstruct it.
>

The thing I don't like about my own driver is that, as a WMI device
driver, it can be loaded before the rest of the bus finishes probing.
So user programs that are notified asynchronously that the wmi-mof
driver is loaded and try to use future functionality (ioctl to issue a
MOF-based method call?) might end up doing so before the rest of the
bus is probed.

This could be addressed by always exposing the wmi-mof device last
(sort of -- it can be a module) or perhaps by moving MOF functionality
to the core driver.  Or maybe it's not really a problem.

Also, isn't there a way to ask Microsoft to document this?  Are you
supposed to "ask a question" on this forum, perhaps:

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg134029.aspx

I'm guessing the Samba team knows how to do this, too.