linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 097/102] efivars: explicitly calculate length of VariableName

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: <20130417132858.GA5577@hercules>
Date:	Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:28:58 +0100
From:	Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
To:	Lingzhu Xiang <lxiang@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, "Lee, Chun-Yi" <jlee@...e.com>,
	"kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com" <kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com>,
	Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>,
	Michael Schroeder <mls@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 097/102] efivars: explicitly calculate length of
 VariableName

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 08:13:57PM +0800, Lingzhu Xiang wrote:
> On 04/17/2013 07:56 PM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> >On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:37:43PM +0800, Lingzhu Xiang wrote:
> >>On 04/16/2013 06:33 PM, Luis Henriques wrote:
> >>>68d929862e29a8b52a7f2f2f86a0600423b093cd efi: be more paranoid about available space when creating variables
> >>
> >>This prevents a bricking issue for some Samsung devices but causes
> >>regression on many other machines.
> >>
> >>https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55471
> >>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947142
> >>http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.efi/1078
> >>http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.stable/47150
> >>
> >>This patchset will fix it again:
> >>
> >>http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.efi/1081
> >
> >Thanks for the pointer.  I note that in that thread you yourself imply
> >there are still issues after applying them?  Was that accurate, is there
> >yet further patches needed?
> 
> I just find that issue. Didn't see that when writing the above.
> 
> Earlier I was testing on a different machine and the result was
> good. I guess the patch still needs some more testing.

Thanks Lingzhu.

So, I guess you would recommend me to drop the whole series until we
have this patchset accepted, tested and back-ported for 3.5, correct?

(I tried to isolate the one you pointed out, but I'm afraid there are
too many dependencies between them to drop a single patch.)

Cheers,
--
Luis
--
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/