| 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: <20130819160018.GA22532@srcf.ucam.org> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:00:18 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org> To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> 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, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:22:45AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > 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. And why's that a benefit? Nobody's ever going to be able to ship an OS that doesn't implement these workarounds - they're de-facto part of the spec. It'd make more sense to document them officially. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org -- 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