linux-kernel - Re: your patch "x86, olpc: Rework BIOS signature check"

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Kn+dAc9uUFnUCRA35CyHQZgrwzcM_P-Hc8XOC@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:34:44 +0000
From:	Daniel Drake <dsd@...top.org>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: your patch "x86, olpc: Rework BIOS signature check"

Hi Jan,

On 26 November 2010 13:18, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com> wrote:
> ... adds a select of OLPC_OPENFIRMWARE to the OLPC option,
> which contradicts OLPC_OPENFIRMWARE itself depending on
> !X86_64 && !X86_PAE. Are the latter dependencies not necessary
> anymore (the X86_64 one wasn't very meaningful anyway, since
> these options all sit inside a "if X86_32"), or should the select be
> conditional?
>
> Also, how meaningful is having OLPC_OPENFIRMWARE on but OLPC
> off (i.e. can OLPC_OPENFIRMWARE perhaps go away altogether)?

Yeah, having reached this point we think OLPC_OPENFIRMWARE should be
merged into CONFIG_OLPC. I'll submit a patch soon.

Daniel
--
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/