Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1366308
| From | Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] efi: Capsule update support |
| Date | 2016-03-29 16:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ri2lB-72M-27@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rdFGW-7xG-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <rdFGW-7xG-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rf5fY-4c5-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <rfeMi-2oQ-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <ri0Wu-69T-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 29 March 2016 at 14:26, Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar, at 08:31:59PM, Matt Fleming wrote: >> >> Good question. They're not handled in any special way with this patch >> series, so the firmware will just initiate its own reset inside of >> UpdateCapsule(). >> >> That's probably not what we want, because things like on-disk >> consistency are not guaranteed if the machine spontaneously reboots >> without assistance from the kernel. >> >> The simplest thing to do is to refuse to pass such capsules to the >> firmware, since it's likely not going to be a common use case. But >> maybe that's overly restrictive. >> >> Let me have a think about that one. > > OK, I did think about this, and until someone actually requests the > ability to handle CAPSULE_FLAGS_INITIATE_RESET, I'm happy to just punt > on the problem. Anyone got any objections? > Nope > --- > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/capsule.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/capsule.c > index dac25208ad5e..84450e9cdf41 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/capsule.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/capsule.c > @@ -84,6 +84,14 @@ int efi_capsule_supported(efi_guid_t guid, u32 flags, size_t size, int *reset) > u64 max_size; > int rv = 0; > > + /* > + * We do not handle firmware-initiated reset because that > + * would require us to prepare the kernel for reboot. Refuse > + * to load any capsules with that flag. > + */ > + if (flags & EFI_CAPSULE_INITIATE_RESET) > + return -EINVAL; > + Should we perhaps whitelist rather than blacklist these flags? If a 'EFI_CAPSULE_INITIATE_RESET_TOO' surfaces at some point, or flags that do other nasty things, at least we won't be caught off guard. > capsule = kmalloc(sizeof(*capsule), GFP_KERNEL); > if (!capsule) > return -ENOMEM;
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 2/4] efi: Capsule update support Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> - 2016-03-21 11:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] efi: Capsule update support Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 21:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] efi: Capsule update support Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-03-29 14:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 2/4] efi: Capsule update support Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> - 2016-03-29 16:00 +0200
csiph-web