linux-kernel - Re: [SPECIFICATION RFC] The firmware and bootloader log specification

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, 13 Nov 2020 19:14:44 -0800
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>, coreboot@...eboot.org,
        grub-devel@....org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        systemd-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        trenchboot-devel@...glegroups.com, u-boot@...ts.denx.de,
        x86@...nel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Cc:     alecb@...ss.edu, alexander.burmashev@...cle.com,
        allen.cryptic@...il.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
        ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, btrotter@...il.com,
        dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com, eric.devolder@...cle.com,
        eric.snowberg@...cle.com, hpa@...or.com, hun@...imensional.de,
        javierm@...hat.com, joao.m.martins@...cle.com,
        kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        krystian.hebel@...eb.com, leif@...iainc.com,
        lukasz.hawrylko@...el.com, luto@...capital.net,
        michal.zygowski@...eb.com, mjg59@...gle.com, mtottenh@...mai.com,
        phcoder@...il.com, piotr.krol@...eb.com, pjones@...hat.com,
        pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de, roger.pau@...rix.com,
        ross.philipson@...cle.com, tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [SPECIFICATION RFC] The firmware and bootloader log specification

On 11/13/20 3:52 PM, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> 
> Here is the description (pseudocode) of the structures which will be
> used to store the log data.
> 
> Anyway, I am aware that this is not specification per se.


Yes, you have caveats here. I'm sure that you either already know
or would learn soon enough that struct struct bf_log has some
padding added to it (for alignment) unless it is packed.
Or you could rearrange the order of some of its fields
and save 8 bytes per struct on x86_64.


>   struct bf_log
>   {
>     uint32_t   version;
>     char       producer[64];
>     uint64_t   flags;
>     uint64_t   next_bf_log_addr;
>     uint32_t   next_msg_off;
>     bf_log_msg msgs[];
>   }
> 
>   struct bf_log_msg
>   {
>     uint32_t size;
>     uint64_t ts_nsec;
>     uint32_t level;
>     uint32_t facility;
>     uint32_t msg_off;
>     char     strings[];
>   }


cheers.
-- 
~Randy