On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 22 February 2018 at 18:07, Linus Torvalds > <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Luck, Tony <tony.l...@intel.com> wrote: >>> With the new "while/nap" change there would still be one message >>> per second, but the number of callbacks suppressed should be 1 >>> (unless the user has many threads doing reads). >>> >>> Maybe it is good to know that an application is doing something >>> stupid and we should drop that line from the patch and let the >>> warnings flow? >> >> I think the "one message per second" is fine. >> >> Looks good. Do I get this through the EFI tree, or should I just take >> it directly? >> > > Please take it directly if everybody is happy with it. > > Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org>
I don't like this at all. We're coming up with a bizarre ad-hoc hack to work around the fact that we're allowing any unprivileged user can call into firmware. Let's just require privilege. As I understand it, Windows already requires privilege, and Windows is *right*. Let's apply the original patch, not my patch. Then, if it causes problems with sealtotp, either users can chmod the relevant file or we can add a gross hack in the kernel to make that particular file 0644 *and print a warning* if the file exists. Then users can bug mjg to fix sealtotp to use a privileged helper or systemd service or whatever and rename the file at the same time. But I read the sealtotp manual, and I don't see the point of using an EFI var for sealtotp in the first place. sealtotp supports TPM NV storage, EFI vars, and plain old files. I get why TPM NV makes logical sense (sealtotp is a TPM thing), and using a plain old file seems entirely reasonable. I don't see why anyone would prefer an EFI variable. --Andy
