linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] efi: drop obsolete efivars sysfs documentation

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: <Y85MYpfHOsFJ8GF6@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 09:59:14 +0100
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] efi: drop obsolete efivars sysfs documentation

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 09:39:41AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 at 09:19, Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > The efivars sysfs interface was removed by commit 0f5b2c69a4cb ("efi:
> > vars: Remove deprecated 'efivars' sysfs interface").
> >
> > Remove also the corresponding sysfs ABI documentation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v2
> >  - drop reference in gsmi sysfs documentation
> >  - drop reference in efivarfs.rst (kernel test robot)
> >
> 
> Ugh. So there is a remaining implementation of that interface. That is
> a bit disappointing, tbh.

No, you removed the implementation in the commit mentioned above. The
Google SMI driver only provides a efivars "backend" but the interface
was shared. The driver continues to work with efivarfs.

> So for now, let's disregard this patch, and I will check internally
> whether or not that sysfs gsmi interface is actually used. If it is,
> the docs should be kept but updated to clarify that it only describes
> gsmi sysfs. Otherwise, we can drop the whole thing, including the gsmi
> sysfs pieces themselves.

So you'd need to bring back the sysfs implementation and make it Google
SMI specific if it's still needed by someone. I don't think we want to
do that if it can be avoided.

Johan