linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.10 ~ 3.14] efi: fix the efi 32bit boot failed problem

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:	Thu, 30 Jul 2015 17:45:44 +0100
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	fupan.li@...driver.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	fupanli@...il.com, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
	Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10 ~ 3.14] efi: fix the efi 32bit boot failed problem

On Thu, 30 Jul, at 09:31:02AM, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> Why isn't this an issue in newer kernel releases?  Did this already get
> fixed by some other patch?  If so, why can't we just take that patch?
> If not, why not?
 
The commit 35d5134b7d5a ("x86/efi: Correct EFI boot stub use of
code32_start") only exists in the stable trees in that form because
there was quite a lot of churn in that area in Linus tree that didn't
get backported.

So the code in Linus' tree never looked like the code in the stable does
right now.

> I _REALLY_ don't like taking patches that are not already in Linus's
> tree, as it almost always turns out to be the wrong solution.

Yeah, I think this issue verifies that.

-- 
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 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/