linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v5 0/5] Add movablecore

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F1C988096@ORSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:29:17 +0000
From:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	li guang <lig.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
	Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"jiang.liu@...wei.com" <jiang.liu@...wei.com>,
	"wujianguo@...wei.com" <wujianguo@...wei.com>,
	"wency@...fujitsu.com" <wency@...fujitsu.com>,
	"laijs@...fujitsu.com" <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	"linfeng@...fujitsu.com" <linfeng@...fujitsu.com>,
	"yinghai@...nel.org" <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	"rob@...dley.net" <rob@...dley.net>,
	"minchan.kim@...il.com" <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	"mgorman@...e.de" <mgorman@...e.de>,
	"rientjes@...gle.com" <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	"guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com" <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
	"rusty@...tcorp.com.au" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	"lliubbo@...il.com" <lliubbo@...il.com>,
	"jaegeuk.hanse@...il.com" <jaegeuk.hanse@...il.com>,
	"glommer@...allels.com" <glommer@...allels.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 0/5] Add movablecore_map boot option

> kernel absolutely should not care much about SMBIOS(DMI info),
> AFAIK, every BIOS vendor did not fill accurate info in SMBIOS,
> mostly only on demand when OEMs required SMBIOS to report some
> specific info.
> furthermore, SMBIOS is so old and benifit nobody(in my personal
> opinion), so maybe let's forget it.

The "not having right information" flaw could be fixed by OEMs selling
systems on which it is important for system functionality that it be right.
They could use monetary incentives, contractual obligations, or sharp
pointy sticks to make their BIOS vendor get the table right.

BUT there is a bigger flaw - SMBIOS is a static table with no way to
update it in response to hotplug events.  So it could in theory have the
right information at boot time ... there is no possible way for it to be
right as soon as somebody adds, removes or replaces hardware.

-Tony