linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][v8] PM / hibernate: Verify the consistent of e820 memory map by md5 value

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <57C4A438.6090800@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:08:08 -0400
From:   Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC:     pavel@....cz, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, jlee@...e.com,
        bp@...en8.de, yu.c.chen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH][v8] PM / hibernate: Verify the consistent of e820 memory
 map by md5 value


[My apologies for breaking threading.  I'm not sub'd to LKML ...]

On Mon 2016-08-29 00:35:40, Chen Yu wrote:
>+	if (memcmp(result, buf, MD5_DIGEST_SIZE)) {
>+		pr_err("PM: e820 map conflict detected.\n");
>+		panic("BIOS is playing funny tricks with us.\n");
>+	}

This should have a better explanation.  Perhaps

	BUG("PM: BIOS e820 map conflicts with map from previous boot.  S4/hibernate is
not supported on this platform.  Please contact your hardware vendor.\n");

or

	pr_crit(FW_BUG "BIOS e820 map conflicts with map from previous boot.");
	BUG("PM: S4/hibernate is broken on this platform.  Please contact your hardware
vendor for support.\n");

is more appropriate rather than having them filing a kernel.org BZ or
contacting an OS company with a bug that cannot be resolved in software.  There
are some other instances in the kernel where we've told them to do the same,
and it is appropriate to do so here.

P.