linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3 v6] ACPI: allow longer device IDs

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: <CAHmME9qW4EiYU6_kTffMdK5ijJY1DF6YRt=gDjj1vKqDxB0Raw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Feb 2022 22:54:39 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-crypto <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 v6] ACPI: allow longer device IDs

Hi Andy,

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 10:28 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> My point is that this is clear abuse of the spec and:
> 1) we have to enable the broken, because it is already in the wild with
>    the comment that this is an issue
>
> AND
>
> 2) issue an ECR / work with MS to make sure they understand the problem.
>
> This can be done in parallel. What I meant as a prerequisite is to start doing
> 2) while we have 1) on table.

Oh, okay, that makes sense. If you want to get (2) going, by all means
go for it. I have no idea how to do this myself; Ard said something
about joining the UEFI forum as an individual something or another but
I don't think I'm the man for the job there. Is this something that
Intel can do with their existing membership (is that the right term?)
at the UEFI forum? Or maybe a Microsoft engineer on the list?

>From my side, regarding (1), I'm basically just waiting for Rafael's
"Acked-by" (or an explicit nack) so I can put this in my tree and move
on.

Jason