linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] efi: an sysfs interface for user to update efi firmware

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:	Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:24:34 +0100
From:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:	Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"Kweh, Hock Leong" <hock.leong.kweh@...el.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
	"Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>,
	Roy Franz <roy.franz@...aro.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] efi: an sysfs interface for user to update efi
 firmware

> Yes, I think we've all agreed we can do it ... it's now a question of
> whether we can stomach the ick factor of actually initiating a
> transaction in close ... I'm still feeling queasy.

NFS does transactions - including figuring out if the data will fit - on
file close. It does that for real data so I'd relax. With hard disks we
don't even complete a set of actions on close they just float around for
a bit and get committed (but if there is a media failure you lose if you
didnt commit them first via fsync etc)

> The alternative might be a two file approach (either in sysfs or a mini
> custom fs), one for load up data and the other for initiate transaction
> with the data errors (like overflow) being returned on the load up file
> and the transaction errors being returned on the write that initiates
> the transaction.

The two file problem then turns into the "which transaction of the two
done in parallel" problem.

> My architectural sense is that transaction on close, provided we can
> make it a more universally accepted idea, has a lot of potential because
> it's more intuitive than the two file approach.

Agreed

Alan
--
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/