| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1376925765.2069.24.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 08:22:45 -0700 From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, "John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: UEFI Plugfest 2013 -- New Orleans On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 13:55 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 09:25:35AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > Every deviation from the spec (or common sense), however minor, should > > show up as a clear failure. Even the ones we *have* been able to work > > around, because we still want them *fixed*. > > Why? It's not like we can ever stop carrying that code. The reason for doing it is that we have a buildable reference implementation that's fully spec compliant we can then make the basis of a test suite for UEFI. I am worried about it from another angle, though: history has shown we're not very good at maintaining configurations which we don't really use ... since every distro will turn this off (or the workarounds on), it's going to be a bit of work for someone to make sure it still functions. James -- 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