linux-kernel - Re: [RFC,PATCH] efi: Add support for a UEFI variable filesystem

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: <50440A5A.900@canonical.com>
Date:	Mon, 03 Sep 2012 09:39:38 +0800
From:	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch@...l.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH] efi: Add support for a UEFI variable filesystem

hi hpa,

> Wouldn't that be better handled by O_APPEND?

Possibly, but this then means that there are now two "interfaces" that
specify the variable attributes.

[Also, in that case we should support the same mechanism through open();
llseek(0, SEEK_END) then, right?]

In general, I think the attributes-in-a-header mechanism is a little
tidier than providing them in the filename. For instance, finding if a
variable exists from userspace will require iterating the dentries (or
trying all combinations of variables), if the attributes aren't known.

However, I'm happy to implement this if it's the generally-preferred
solution.

Cheers,

Jeremy

--
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/