linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH 1/3] efi: pstore: Request at most 512 bytes for variable names

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMj1kXHEzDzFk+6jo0UNFQ9RptRS==88XjnvxLiZThZAm6pF-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:34:29 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
Cc: linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, Tim Schumacher <timschumi@....de>, 
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, 
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] efi: pstore: Request at most 512 bytes for variable names

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 at 21:46, Guilherme G. Piccoli <gpiccoli@...lia.com> wrote:
>
> On 15/03/2024 06:16, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > [...]
> > As an aside, you really want to avoid EFI pstore in general, and
> > specifically on such old systems with quirky UEFI implementations.
> >
>
> Hi Ard, this comment made me very curious; apart from old quirky UEFI
> implementations, what's the reason you see to avoid using efi-pstore in
> general ?
>
> Thanks in advance for your insights!

I'm just not impressed by the general quality of implementations -
relying on this when the system is going down is a reasonable last
resort, perhaps, but if other options are available, I'd prioritize
those.

And this is for the oops/panic logs only - other uses of pstore seem
better served with ordinary file based persistence.