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]
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 17:32:09 -0500
From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: mpe@...erman.id.au, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        jarkko@...nel.org, rnsastry@...ux.ibm.com, peterhuewe@....de,
        viparash@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Preserve TPM log across kexec



On 3/7/24 16:42, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 11:08:20AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/6/24 10:55, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>> This series resolves an issue on PowerVM and KVM on Power where the memory
>>> the TPM log was held in may become inaccessible or corrupted after a kexec
>>> soft reboot. The solution on these two platforms is to store the whole log
>>> in the device tree because the device tree is preserved across a kexec with
>>> either of the two kexec syscalls.
>>>
>> FYI: This was the previous attempt that didn't work with the older kexec
>> syscall: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4afde78d-e138-9eee-50e0-dbd32f4dcfe0@linux.ibm.com/T/#m158630d214837e41858b03d4b025e6f96cb8f251
> 
> Doesn't everyone else still need that? Is powerpc the only ones that
Are you referring to the old series with 'that' ? I more or less had to 
abandon it because it wouldn't solve the problem for the old kexec 
syscall, so that's why I am embedding the whole log now in the 
devicetree since the DT is properly carried across the kexec soft reboot 
on PowerVM and KVM for Power. Maybe other platforms will (have to) 
follow, but I don't know.

> care about the old kexec syscall?
> 
> Rob

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ