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]

Date:   Thu, 13 Apr 2017 08:44:28 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Michał Kępień <kernel@...pniu.pl>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>,
        Mario Limonciello <Mario_Limonciello@...l.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: WMI Enhancements

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 13 April 2017 17:32:48 Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Michał Kępień <kernel@...pniu.pl>
>> wrote:
>> > What we still need, though, is an open source version of
>> > wmiofck.exe.  I am unaware of anything like that existing and
>> > installing the Windows Driver Kit just to run one command which
>> > spits out a single *.h file is not something I would describe as
>> > convenient (been there).
>>
>> I haven't tried to see whether they do what's needed, but there's
>> OpenWBEM and OpenPegasus.
>>
>> Anyway, if such a tool exists, it would be handy to expose the binary
>> MOF data to userspace so the tool could be used to help get WMI
>> working on new platforms.
>
> In this case, when WMI stay in kernel, MOF data could be exported via
> debugfs? I think there is no need to have them in sysfs stable ABI. As
> above usage (get WMI working on new platforms) looks like for debugging
> purpose.
>

That's a reasonable point.