linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] platform/x86: think-lmi: Correct NVME password handling

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: <709df78f-4313-460a-87da-f4d302ed8912@app.fastmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 May 2023 10:58:08 -0400
From:   "Mark Pearson" <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>
To:     Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Hans de Goede" <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        "markgross@...nel.org" <markgross@...nel.org>,
        "platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" 
        <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] platform/x86: think-lmi: Correct NVME password handling

Thanks Ilpo

On Mon, May 29, 2023, at 8:03 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2023, Mark Pearson wrote:
>
>> NVME passwords identifier have been standardised across the Lenovo
>> systems and now use udrp and adrp (user and admin level) instead of
>> unvp and mnvp.
>> 
>> This should apparently be backwards compatible.
>> 
>> Also cleaned up so the index is set to a default of 1 rather than 0
>> as this just makes more sense (there is no device 0).
>
> These two sound entirely separate changes. If that's the case, please 
> make own patch from the send change.

Ack. It was all related to the index setting and seemed trivial so I lumped together but I can split.
This patch series is turning into a good learning exercise for my git skills :) (which are limited)

>
> Hmm, index_store() still allows 0, is that also related here? Please check 
> also ABI documentation as index default seems to be mentioned there as 
> well.
>

I'd rather not limit it so 0 isn't allowed in case our BIOS team does something weird in the future; but right now 1 is the default so it makes more sense.

Well spotted on the ABI documentation - I had completely missed that. I will address that as well.

> -- 
>  i.

Thanks for the review
Mark