linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: change name of efi_no_storage_paranoia parameter to efi_storage

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]

Date:	Fri, 8 Nov 2013 19:32:51 +0900
From:	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
CC:	<linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<matt.fleming@...el.com>, <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
	<jlee@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, efi: change name of efi_no_storage_paranoia parameter
 to efi_storage_paranoia

(2013/11/08 19:29), Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 08.11.2013 11:25, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
>> (2013/11/08 18:37), Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> Am 08.11.2013 10:34, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
>>>> (2013/11/08 17:05), Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>>>> Am 08.11.2013 08:33, schrieb Yasuaki Ishimatsu:
>>>>>> By following works, my system very often fails set_variable() to set new
>>>>>> variable to efi variable storage and shows "efivars: set_variable() failed:
>>>>>> status=-28" message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - commit 31ff2f20d9003e74991d135f56e503fe776c127c
>>>>>>        efi: Distinguish between "remaining space" and actually used space
>>>>>> - commit 8c58bf3eec3b8fc8162fe557e9361891c20758f2
>>>>>>        x86,efi: Implement efi_no_storage_paranoia parameter
>>>>>> - commit f8b8404337de4e2466e2e1139ea68b1f8295974f
>>>>>>        Modify UEFI anti-bricking code
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When booting my system, remaining space of efi variable storage is about
>>>>>> 5KB. So there is no room that sets a new variable to the storage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to above works, efi_no_storage_paranoia parameter was prepared
>>>>>> for sane UEFI which can do gc and fulfills spec. But why need a system
>>>>>> with a sane UEFI set the parameter? It is wrong. A system with a broken
>>>>>> UEFI should set the parameter.
>>>>>
>>>>> And how does one know that his UEFI is broken?
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea. But at least, bricked board is broken UEFI.
>>>> Do you know the issue occurs on several boards or specific board?
>>>
>>> On *many* boards including laptops....
>>> Please read the history of the whole issue.
>>
>> Thank you for your comment.
>> I has read git log. But there is no information like this.
>> So I will read them of related threads again. Do you know good threads
>> to know the history of the issue?
> 

> Everything started with an issue that killed Samsung laptops:
> http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/22855.html
> 
> Later it was found that if you write too much into UEFI variables many
> UEFI implementations will do bad things.

Thanks for the information.
I will read it.

Thanks,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu

> 
> Thanks,
> //richard
> 


--
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/