linux-kernel - Re: mix of ACPICA regression and EFISTUB regression (Was: kernel >= v6.2 no longer boots on Apple's Virtualization.framework (x86

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: <CAHk-=whKJoDVuUNhf3U7gPXKu4EeZRv-iwwhL0prQ=U3n8PHiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 27 May 2023 12:40:29 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc:     Akihiro Suda <suda.kyoto@...il.com>,
        Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Regressions <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Linux x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPICA <acpica-devel@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>,
        Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>
Subject: Re: mix of ACPICA regression and EFISTUB regression (Was: kernel >=
 v6.2 no longer boots on Apple's Virtualization.framework (x86_64); likely to
 be related to ACPICA)

On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 11:42 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, that makes the most sense. If the existing virtual machine BIOS
> has a hardcoded check that the EFI stub version is 1.0 even if it does
> not boot via EFI to begin with, I don't see how we can reasonably
> treat this as a regression that needs fixing on the Linux side.

Well, we consider firmware issues to be the same as any hardware
issue. If firmware has a bug that requires us to do things certain
ways, that's really no different from hardware that requires some
insane init sequence.

So why not just say that LINUX_EFISTUB_MINOR_VERSION should be 0, and
just add the comment that versioning doesn't work?

I'm not sure why this was tied into always enabling the initrd command
line loader.

Numbered version checks are a fundamentally broken and stupid concept
anyway. Don't do them. Just leave it at zero, and maybe some day there
is a sane model that actually has a bitfield of capabilities and
requirements.

              Linus