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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue, 14 Oct 2014 22:46:33 +0100
From:	Matt Fleming <>
To:	Borislav Petkov <>
	Matt Fleming <>,
	Leif Lindholm <>,
	"Kweh, Hock Leong" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] efi: Capsule update support

On Fri, 10 Oct, at 08:28:47PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> You have efi_capsule_update() vs efi_update_capsule(). Maybe change the
> names a bit more for differentiation. Or prepend the workhorse doing all
> the work with "__" or so...
Yeah, I really didn't come up with a great naming scheme here. I'll fix

> > +
> > +	for (i = 0; i < nr_block_pgs; i++) {
> > +		block_pgs[i] = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL);
> Maybe alloc_pages() once we verify that it actually gives phys. contig.
> memory and maybe also try to do it outside of the locked region. I don't
> know if it would matter to drop the locks though as capsule updating is
> not something you do pretty often. I'd hope!

Actually, I'm not bothered about getting physically contiguous memory
because we pass a scatter gather list to the firmware anyway. What I was
looking for was to avoid doing high order allocations when we don't
really need them (lots of low order allocs are fine).

Right, allocating under the lock isn't a great idea. I'll take a look at
reworking this to do the allocation up front.

Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists