linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: retry ExitBootServices() on failure

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: <1371465690.6523.331.camel@linux-s257.site>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:41:30 +0800
From:	joeyli <jlee@...e.com>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>, Zach Bobroff <zacharyb@....com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: retry ExitBootServices() on failure

於 一，2013-06-17 於 11:17 +0100，Matt Fleming 提到：
> On Mon, 17 Jun, at 10:46:28AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > To me, all this looks like it is being done on phenomenological basis,
> > taking a particular build of a particular firmware implementation as
> > the reference. Imo we shouldn't change the code in this way. This
> > also applies to the fact that the step is being doubled rather than
> > e.g. tripled: With it ending up a "again" anyway (see below), what's
> > the point of avoiding one more of the iterations?
> > 
> > Generic considerations would result in the increment being at least
> > 3 * element size; twice the element size assumes that the allocator
> > would behave in certain ways (like returning the head or tail part of
> > a larger piece of memory).
>  
> I have no issue with changing the multiplier. But let's get
> clarification from Zach as to what exactly is going on here.
> 
> > I agree that there ought to be an upper limit. But a single retry here
> > again looks like a tailored solution to a particular observed (mis-)
> > behavior, rather than something resulting from general considerations.
> 
> What value would you suggest for the retry?
> 

Currently grub2 retry unlimited times like attached patch.

But, I also agree need have a upper limit.


Thanks a lot!
Joey Lee


View attachment "bug-823386_grub-r4778.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (3191 bytes)