From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC1FC282DE for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 08:14:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08B2C2075C for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 08:14:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="eqPEzhfm" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 08B2C2075C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45JhQb6sMxzDqdq for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 18:14:15 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=linuxfoundation.org (client-ip=198.145.29.99; helo=mail.kernel.org; envelope-from=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="eqPEzhfm"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45JhPG3vvnzDqPk for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 18:13:06 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 455772075C; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 08:13:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1559722383; bh=93lPZPoK1JhJhOgE1GB3XAmEenhb5pgYNCcngZSfVCI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=eqPEzhfm+mkz1rP0CgJZV9awvJBNXBuRcqT+ilCPLoP0gwknLDHMvX4F5m9zCop8U 84TzlNrABj84RSwcqTt7WMtw0TxXzVI4dOemlR3jLbM3yROOl0NbxjQ+Je/v/S3/uE 3dotGPa8vedQPR0A4+Y4tbeeBVzDaLiAssy7PsEc= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 10:13:01 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [WIP RFC PATCH 0/6] Generic Firmware Variable Filesystem Message-ID: <20190605081301.GA23180@kroah.com> References: <20190520062553.14947-1-dja@axtens.net> <316a0865-7e14-b36a-7e49-5113f3dfc35f@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87zhmzxkzz.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net> <20190603072916.GA7545@kroah.com> <87tvd6xlx9.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.0 (2019-05-25) X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Nayna , Nayna Jain , Claudio Carvalho , Mimi Zohar , George Wilson , Elaine Palmer , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev , Daniel Axtens Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:05:45PM -0700, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:01 PM Nayna wrote: > > It seems efivars were first implemented in sysfs and then later > > separated out as efivarfs. > > Refer - Documentation/filesystems/efivarfs.txt. > > > > So, the reason wasn't that sysfs should not be used for exposing > > firmware variables, > > but for the size limitations which seems to come from UEFI Specification. > > > > Is this limitation valid for the new requirement of secure variables ? > > I don't think the size restriction is an issue now, but there's a lot > of complex semantics around variable deletion and immutability that > need to be represented somehow. Ah, yeah, that's the reason it would not work in sysfs, forgot all about that, thanks. greg k-h From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA0AC282DE for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 08:13:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A17620866 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 08:13:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1559722385; bh=93lPZPoK1JhJhOgE1GB3XAmEenhb5pgYNCcngZSfVCI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=tGKAL4QjLaB0DFvOAfTcthsv4IDYL93BCHfxSOkpVfE4cDfOick2si2WLdU9EfxGE DTT9igd5mEH4pRpCQA7gEw9iNtOaWc8rg4iJ+N6erPJzlXEZKPTBqPNiKOR3qZp5m7 KAYUn/rdthY3fTPb+S27UChk1dgk1bHbQ6W0yuMU= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726532AbfFEINE (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jun 2019 04:13:04 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:38778 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726467AbfFEINE (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jun 2019 04:13:04 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 455772075C; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 08:13:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1559722383; bh=93lPZPoK1JhJhOgE1GB3XAmEenhb5pgYNCcngZSfVCI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=eqPEzhfm+mkz1rP0CgJZV9awvJBNXBuRcqT+ilCPLoP0gwknLDHMvX4F5m9zCop8U 84TzlNrABj84RSwcqTt7WMtw0TxXzVI4dOemlR3jLbM3yROOl0NbxjQ+Je/v/S3/uE 3dotGPa8vedQPR0A4+Y4tbeeBVzDaLiAssy7PsEc= Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 10:13:01 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Nayna , Daniel Axtens , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Nayna Jain , linuxppc-dev , Claudio Carvalho , George Wilson , Mimi Zohar , Elaine Palmer Subject: Re: [WIP RFC PATCH 0/6] Generic Firmware Variable Filesystem Message-ID: <20190605081301.GA23180@kroah.com> References: <20190520062553.14947-1-dja@axtens.net> <316a0865-7e14-b36a-7e49-5113f3dfc35f@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87zhmzxkzz.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net> <20190603072916.GA7545@kroah.com> <87tvd6xlx9.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.0 (2019-05-25) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:05:45PM -0700, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:01 PM Nayna wrote: > > It seems efivars were first implemented in sysfs and then later > > separated out as efivarfs. > > Refer - Documentation/filesystems/efivarfs.txt. > > > > So, the reason wasn't that sysfs should not be used for exposing > > firmware variables, > > but for the size limitations which seems to come from UEFI Specification. > > > > Is this limitation valid for the new requirement of secure variables ? > > I don't think the size restriction is an issue now, but there's a lot > of complex semantics around variable deletion and immutability that > need to be represented somehow. Ah, yeah, that's the reason it would not work in sysfs, forgot all about that, thanks. greg k-h