linux-kernel - Re: [regression, bisected] x86: efi: Pass boot services variable info to runtime code

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 31 May 2013 07:54:22 -0400
From:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Russ Anderson <rja@....com>,
	joeyli <jlee@...e.com>, Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [regression, bisected] x86: efi: Pass boot services variable info
 to runtime code

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 May 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> > > Unfortunately that means that you can as well throw the patch away
>> > > completely.
>> > >
>> > > The sole point is to run the QueryVariableInfo() from the boot
>> > > environment, in order to obtain more accurate information. And it's
>> > > a valid thing to do, according to UEFI specification.
>> >
>> > So this change needs to be reverted or fixed.
>>
>> I don't think anyone is arguing against that.
>
> The statement I replied to above can be fairly read as arguing against it.
>
> Anyway, given that the fix (workaround) from Boris seems elaborate so late
> in the v3.10 cycle, does everyone else agree with a revert as well?

If you go with a revert, please make sure to tag it for stable to it
gets picked up with 3.9.y.

josh
--
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/