linux-kernel - Re: [dmidecode] [Patch v3] firmware: dmi-sysfs: add SMBIOS entry point area raw attribute

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:	Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:53:04 +0100
From:	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:	Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Cc:	"Ivan.khoronzhuk" <ivan.khoronzhuk@...ballogic.com>,
	dmidecode-devel@...gnu.org,
	Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [dmidecode] [Patch v3] firmware: dmi-sysfs: add SMBIOS entry
 point area raw attribute

On 8 March 2015 at 12:31, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de> wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
>
> On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 22:53:32 +0200, Ivan.khoronzhuk wrote:
>> On 03/05/2015 09:46 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> > It's not just two tables (I don't expect a lot of BIOSes to provide two
>> > tables in practice, and they would have essentially the same format
>> > anyway) but more importantly two entry points. The _SM3_ entry point is
>> > brand new and most applications (including dmidecode) don't support it
>> > yet. It doesn't matter if the kernel itself can parse it, as it passes
>> > the raw entry point to applications anyway.
>> >
>> > It happens that we are introducing this new sysfs raw interface at the
>> > same time _SM3_ is being introduced, so we do not have to care about
>> > backwards compatibility. Both the kernel and dmidecode will need to be
>> > updated to support the new interface, so we can keep things simple and
>> > let the kernel expose only the best entry point.
>> >
>> > If the sysfs raw interface was already present at the time _SM3_
>> > support was being added, then we would have had to present both entry
>> > points for backwards compatibility. And if some _SM4_ entry point is
>> > ever added in the future with a new format, we will have to export it
>> > as a new sysfs attribute so as to not break compatibility.
>> >
>> > As a summary, I agree that a single entry point file is OK for now, but
>> > only because we are lucky that the timing is right.
>>
>> Despite of timing is right.
>>
>> The specification doesn't oblige firmware to provide two entry points.
>> An implementation may provide either the 32-bit entry point or the 64-bit
>> entry point, or both. For compatibility with existing SMBIOS parsers, an
>> implementation should provide the 32-bit entry point, but it's not required.
>
> I expect most implementations will do, as it's trivial to implement.
>

Not quite. First of all, some 64-bit ARM systems do not have any
system RAM below 4 GB, so there is not way they can implement the
32-bit entry point. Also, the 64-bit entry point does not limit the
structure size or the entire table to 64 KB like the 32-bit one does,
so it may be necessary to create a whole separate table with a subset
of the contents of the real table to stay within limits for the 32-bit
entry point. And the 32-bit entry point could well be 3.0 anyway, if
it uses any of the new enum values for the data items that were
undefined before 3.0.

More info here:
http://sourceforge.net/p/edk2/mailman/message/33550425/

Regards,
Ard.


>> you can
>> be sure in backward compatibility. But at least for now you can't.
>>
>> It's obvious, if kernel found two entry points then it can create two
>> sysfs attributes.
>> But, what kernel should do in case if only one new entry point is present.
>> Generate entry point of old version..., sorry but it's bad idea. At
>> least because
>> where guarantee that we have enough information for this. Only field we
>> can bring
>> thought entry point versions is magic string _SM*_, and based on it, if util
>> don't support new version it can warn. It's used for differ versions and
>> there is nothing we can do more.
>
> I agree that the kernel should not fake an entry point which does not
> exist (I'm not sure if you misunderstood me but I never suggested that.)
>
> --
> Jean Delvare
> SUSE L3 Support
--
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/