linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] EFI: Add support for variables longer than 1024 bytes

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]

Date:	Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:58:20 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
CC:	Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] EFI: Add support for variables longer than 1024 bytes

On 12/14/2011 02:57 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 02:44:34PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 12/14/2011 02:39 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>>> What are your thoughts on _not_ wrapping efi_variable with
>>>> extended_efi_variable, and instead just using a
>>>> "internal_efi_variable" structure that we copy stuff into/outof.  I
>>>> think that would make the memory management for dealing with the
>>>> different sizes a lot easier to follow.
>>>
>>> Hm. I think that'd only work if we expose a new interface. Writes would 
>>> be easy enough to handle, but reads still need to work for old apps.
>>>
>>
>> Would making the old ABI readonly and add a new write interface resolve
>> the problem with compat mode?
> 
> Yes, but we'd break existing userspace.
> 

Obviously.  However, you indicated above that that might be acceptable
-- how many things use this ABI to set variables?

	-hpa

--
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/