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]
Date:	Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:09:02 +0100
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To:	Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
CC:	matt.fleming@...el.com, ben@...adent.org.uk, jwboyer@...hat.com,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, seth.forshee@...onical.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] efi: Determine how much space is used by boot services-only
 variables

On 01/04/13 16:13, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> EFI variables can be flagged as being accessible only within boot services.
> This makes it awkward for us to figure out how much space they use at
> runtime. In theory we could figure this out by simply comparing the results
> from QueryVariableInfo() to the space used by all of our variables, but
> that fails if the platform doesn't garbage collect on every boot. Thankfully,
> calling QueryVariableInfo() while still inside boot services gives a more
> reliable answer. This patch passes that information from the EFI boot stub
> up to the efivars code, letting us calculate a reasonably accurate value.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/boot/compressed/eboot.c      | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/x86/include/asm/efi.h            | 10 ++++++++
>  arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bootparam.h |  1 +
>  arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c           | 21 ++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/firmware/efivars.c            | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  5 files changed, 108 insertions(+)

We're fixing a regression in efivars.c, but only for those users that
boot via the EFI boot stub? That seems likely to upset some people.

Introducing new features via the EFI boot stub is fine, and working
around firmware bugs so that we can use some feature is also cool, but
we can't start fixing regressions from other subsystems in the EFI boot
stub.

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ