linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use

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:   Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:49:32 +0000
From:   <Alex_Gagniuc@...lteam.com>
To:     <okaya@...nel.org>, <mr.nuke.me@...il.com>, <keith.busch@...el.com>
Cc:     <baicar.tyler@...il.com>, <Austin.Bolen@...l.com>,
        <Shyam.Iyer@...l.com>, <lukas@...ner.de>, <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        <rjw@...ysocki.net>, <lenb@...nel.org>, <ruscur@...sell.cc>,
        <sbobroff@...ux.ibm.com>, <oohall@...il.com>,
        <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] PCI/AER: Consistently use _OSC to determine who owns
 AER

On 11/19/2018 02:33 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> True. I was trying to get it out in a rush. I omitted words.

Sounds like you'd make an top notch spec writer! :p

> However; table assumes governance about for which entities firmware first
> should be enabled. There is no cross reference to _OSC or permission
> negotiation like _OST.

Well, from an OSPM perspective, is FFS something that can be enabled or 
disabled? FFS seems to be static to OSPM, which would change the sort of 
assumptions we can reasonably make here.


>>> As I said in my previous email, the right place to talk about this is UEFI
>>> forum.
>>
>> The way I would present the problem to he spec writers is that, although
>> the spec appears to be consistent, we've seen firmware vendors that made
>> the wrong assumptions about HEST/_OSC. Instead of describing AER
>> ownership with _OSC, they attempted to do it with HEST. So we should add
>> an implementation note, or clarification about this.
> 
> I agree.

Cool. While the UEFI Secret Society debates, can we figure out if/how 
[patch 1/2] breaks those systems, or is it only [patch 2/2] of this 
series that we suspect?

Alex