linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, reboot: skip DMI checks if reboot set by user

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: <20120119154504.710e202e@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:45:04 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Michael D Labriola <mlabriol@...b.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Kushal Koolwal <kushalkoolwal@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, michael.d.labriola@...il.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>, support@...salogic.com,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, reboot: skip DMI checks if reboot set by user

> checking if reboot_type's value is anything other than BOOT_ACPI (which
> is the default), but that does assume BOOT_ACPI is the default.  What if
> that's ever changed?  Seems likely to me that whoever changes the default
> in the future could very easily re-break this at that point.
> 
> Thoughts?

Fair point - how about a BOOT_DEFAULT define value if it hasn't been set
and we can just make it do the same as ACPI in the switch ?

Alan
--
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/