linux-kernel - Re: RFC: WMI Enhancements

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]

Message-ID: <20170413073339.GH3090@pali>
Date:   Thu, 13 Apr 2017 09:33:39 +0200
From:   Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
To:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>,
        Mario Limonciello <Mario_Limonciello@...l.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: WMI Enhancements

On Wednesday 12 April 2017 16:08:54 Darren Hart wrote:
> In Windows, applications interact with WMI more or less directly. We don't do
> this in Linux currently, although it has been discussed in the past [3]. Some
> vendors will work around this by performing SMI/SMM, which is inefficient at
> best. Exposing WMI methods to userspace would bring parity to WMI for Linux and
> Windows.

Maybe we should first ask, why linux userspace applications need direct
access to WMI? If we look at current WMI linux drivers, basically every
one translate WMI interface to some standard linux class driver (with
some extensions). This is something which should stay in kernel. E.g.
rfkill, backlight, led, input keyboard, ...

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@...il.com