linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] platform/x86: think-lmi: Correct System password interface

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: <fe193fe8-5a3c-4aa6-bb75-5ac53dc5a8f7@app.fastmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 May 2023 12:10:57 -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 2/5] platform/x86: think-lmi: Correct System password interface


On Mon, May 29, 2023, at 11:50 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2023, Mark Pearson wrote:
>
>> Thanks Ilpo
>> 
>> On Mon, May 29, 2023, at 7:36 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>> > On Fri, 26 May 2023, Mark Pearson wrote:
>> >
>> >> The system password identification was incorrect. This means that if
>> >> the password was enabled it wouldn't be detected correctly; and setting
>> >> it would not work.
>> >> Also updated code to use TLMI_SMP_PWD instead of TLMI_SYS_PWD to be in
>> >> sync with Lenovo documentation.
>> >> 
>> >> Correct these mistakes.
>> >> 
>> >> Signed-off-by: Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>
>> >
>> > Missing Fixes tag?
>> 
>> Yes - will add.
>> 
>> >
>> >> ---
>> >> Changes in v2:
>> >>  - Updated define name to be SMP_PWD instead of SYS_PWD
>> >>  - Clarified in comments what each password type is.
>> >> Changes in v3: None. Version bump with rest of series
>> >> 
>> >>  drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c | 14 +++++++-------
>> >>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>> >> 
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
>> >> index 2745224f62ab..c7e98fbe7c3d 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/think-lmi.c
>> >> @@ -168,11 +168,11 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(debug_support, "Enable debug command support");
>> >>   */
>> >>  #define LENOVO_CERT_THUMBPRINT_GUID "C59119ED-1C0D-4806-A8E9-59AA318176C4"
>> >>  
>> >> -#define TLMI_POP_PWD (1 << 0)
>> >> -#define TLMI_PAP_PWD (1 << 1)
>> >> -#define TLMI_HDD_PWD (1 << 2)
>> >> -#define TLMI_SYS_PWD (1 << 3)
>> >> -#define TLMI_CERT    (1 << 7)
>> >> +#define TLMI_POP_PWD (1 << 0) /* Supervisor */
>> >> +#define TLMI_PAP_PWD (1 << 1) /* Power-on */
>> >> +#define TLMI_HDD_PWD (1 << 2) /* HDD/NVME */
>> >> +#define TLMI_SMP_PWD (1 << 6) /* System Management */
>> >> +#define TLMI_CERT    (1 << 7) /* Certificate Based */
>> >
>> > Whe you're adding Fixes tag, please make this change minimal by just 
>> > adding TLMI_SMP_PWD.
>> >
>> > The rest of these define changes are a good too but it's unrelated to the 
>> > actual fix so they should be in a separate patch. And once you move it 
>> > into own change, convert to BIT() while at it.
>> 
>> I was asked previously to clarify what SMP stood for so added the 
>> comment and it seemed odd to only clarify one and not the others. 
>> Can I push back on this request. Doing two separate patches for just 
>> that doesn't make sense to me.
>
> I did not mean removing TLMI_SMP_PWD's comment from this patch just to add 
> it in the another but the comments to the other bits which should go into 
> their own patch. The thing here is that fixes should be made minimal to 
> comply with stable rules.
>
OK....seems odd to me to be honest,  but not something I'd lose sleep over. 
I'll do that in amongst all the other changes.

Thanks
Mark