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:   Fri, 3 May 2019 08:02:18 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Bartosz Szczepanek <bsz@...ihalf.com>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ThiƩbaud Weksteen <tweek@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 2/4] tpm: Reserve the TPM final events table


* Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:15 AM Ard Biesheuvel
> <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > (+ Ingo)
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 21:52, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 6:07 AM Bartosz Szczepanek <bsz@...ihalf.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I may be a little late with this comment, but I've just tested these
> > > > patches on aarch64 platform (from the top of jjs/master) and got
> > > > kernel panic ("Unable to handle kernel read", full log at the end of
> > > > mail). I think there's problem with below call to
> > > > tpm2_calc_event_log_size(), where physical address of efi.tpm_log is
> > > > passed as (void *) and never remapped:
> > >
> > > Yes, it looks like this is just broken. Can you try with the attached patch?
> >
> > I'm a bit uncomfortable with EFI code that is obviously broken and
> > untested being queued for the next merge window in another tree.
> 
> The patchset was Cc:ed to linux-efi@. Is there anything else I should
> have done to ensure you picked it up rather than Jarkko?

That's not the workflow rule the Linux kernel is using, if Cc:-ing a 
patchset was the only condition for upstream inclusion then we'd have a 
*LOT* of crap in the Linux kernel.

Just applying those EFI changes without even as much as an Acked-by from 
the EFI maintainers is a *totally* unacceptable workflow.

Please revert/rebase and re-try this on the proper submission channels.

Meanwhile the broken code is NAK-ed by me:

   Nacked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>

Thanks,

	Ingo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists