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: <39791b71-7c40-42dc-8618-a2831fa08440@app.fastmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 May 2023 12:06:40 -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>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] platform/x86: think-lmi: Correct NVME password handling



On Mon, May 29, 2023, at 11:41 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2023, Mark Pearson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Sure, do what you feel makes sense here. I was just pointing out the 
> perceived inconsistency in case it wasn't intentional.
>
> It might be useful to add one sentence into changelog about the reasoning 
> so it can be found easier later on (effectively the paragraph you wrote 
> above with small tweaks is enough I think).

Ack - will do. Thanks

Mark