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: <87sgmt3n5v.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:21:00 +1100
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>,
        Matthew Garret <matthew.garret@...ula.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        George Wilson <gcwilson@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Carvalho <cclaudio@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Elaine Palmer <erpalmer@...ibm.com>,
        Eric Ricther <erichte@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/4] powerpc: expose secure variables to the kernel and userspace

Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com> writes:
> On 11/10/19 7:10 PM, Nayna Jain wrote:
>
> Hi Nayna,
>
>> In order to verify the OS kernel on PowerNV systems, secure boot requires
>> X.509 certificates trusted by the platform. These are stored in secure
>> variables controlled by OPAL, called OPAL secure variables. In order to
>> enable users to manage the keys, the secure variables need to be exposed
>> to userspace.
> Are you planning to split the patches in this patch set into smaller 
> chunks so that it is easier to code review and also perhaps make it 
> easier when merging the changes?

I don't think splitting them would add any value. They're already split
into the firmware specific bits (patch 1), and the sysfs parts (patch
2), which is sufficient for me.

cheers

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ