| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:56:02 +0000 From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com> To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com> CC: "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "mikew@...gle.com" <mikew@...gle.com>, "Matthew Garrett (mjg@...hat.com)" <mjg@...hat.com>, "dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net" <dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>, Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com> Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH v2 2/3] Hold multiple logs > > What is the harm of not using this and just letting the number be infinite (or until EFI runs out of space)? Is it a big deal if extra failures > > are logged? The big question is what happens when EFI runs out of space. Matthew avoided the question by implementing the "just one record" policy. Was this because he has some specific knowledge about what happens, or does he just have an irrational[1] fear that the EFI implementation will handle this poorly? Without some tests on at least a couple of different platforms that show that EFI handles out of space conditions gracefully, I continue to have concerns. -Tony [1] Perhaps his fears are rational given how many other places he has found EFI not doing what we'd expect or want. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists