linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] efi: Add support for using efivars as a pstore backend

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]

Message-ID: <20110607205507.GA1386@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Tue, 7 Jun 2011 21:55:07 +0100
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Matt_Domsch@...l.com" <Matt_Domsch@...l.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] efi: Add support for using efivars as a pstore
 backend

On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 01:52:32PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:

> It depends on your level of paranoia - and on what problems
> you think might occur. In an ideal world all the back-ends
> would work - and we'd just use one until it filled up, and
> then move to the next.  in the real world one of the back-ends
> might just randomly hang the system - converting a crashing
> system into a hung system (which many people consider a more
> severe problem). Giving a user an opt-out method for a back-end
> looks good in that scenario.

Yeah. I guess the question then is whether the mediation should be in 
pstore or at the platform backend level. strcmp in pstore_register seems 
somehow fragile for this, but I guess it'd work?

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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/