linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] firmware: Add boot information to sysfs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YmKe5sUIU4z6t0Hn@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Apr 2022 14:26:14 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>, Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-aspeed <linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] firmware: Add boot information to sysfs

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 11:05:46AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 8:46 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 05:52:32PM +1030, Joel Stanley wrote:
> > > +What:                /sys/firmware/bootinfo/*
> > > +Date:                Jan 2022
> >
> > It isn't January anymore :)
> 
> The patch was sent on Feb 4, I would expect that to be close enough. Does this
> need to be the month of the kernel release it is merged into instead?

That's usually best, but at least the month the patch was sent in is
good.

Also I notice there's no "who is responsible for this" entry here.

> 
> > > +Description:
> > > +             A system can expose information about how it was started in
> > > +             this directory.
> >
> > I do not understand what you mean by "how it was started".
> >
> > > +             This information is agnostic as to the firmware implementation.
> >
> > How?  This should be very firmware specific.
> 
> The original patch was specific to a particular SoC vendor. Since the
> information provided here is fairly generic in the end, I asked for
> the interface
> to be generalized to the point that it can be reused across multiple
> vendors and architectures.

Ok, and is that what this interface provides?

thanks,

greg k-h