On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 17:48 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 08:23:56AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > ? examples please.
>
> From this very thread:
>
> \sEfi\s, \sefi\s, \seFI\s etc should be "EFI"
>
> I'm thinking perhaps start conservatively and catch the most often
>
From: Ard Biesheuvel
commit c05f8f92b701576b615f30aac31fabdc0648649b upstream.
The kernel command line option efivar_ssdt= allows the name to be
specified of an EFI variable containing an ACPI SSDT table that should
be loaded into memory by the OS, and treated as if it was provided by
the
From: Ard Biesheuvel
commit c05f8f92b701576b615f30aac31fabdc0648649b upstream.
The kernel command line option efivar_ssdt= allows the name to be
specified of an EFI variable containing an ACPI SSDT table that should
be loaded into memory by the OS, and treated as if it was provided by
the
From: Peter Jones
commit 047d50aee341d940350897c85799e56ae57c3849 upstream.
Some machines generate a lot of event log entries. When we're
iterating over them, the code removes the old mapping and adds a
new one, so once we cross the page boundary we're unmapping the page
with the count on it.
From: Jerry Snitselaar
commit e658c82be5561412c5e83b5e74e9da4830593f3e upstream.
If __calc_tpm2_event_size() fails to parse an event it will return 0,
resulting tpm2_calc_event_log_size() returning -1. Currently there is
no check of this return value, and 'efi_tpm_final_log_size' can end up
From: Peter Jones
commit 05c8c1ff81ed2eb9bad7c27cf92e55c864c16df8 upstream.
When there are no entries to put into the final event log, some machines
will return the template they would have populated anyway. In this case
the nr_events field is 0, but the rest of the log is just garbage.
This
From: Ard Biesheuvel
commit c05f8f92b701576b615f30aac31fabdc0648649b upstream.
The kernel command line option efivar_ssdt= allows the name to be
specified of an EFI variable containing an ACPI SSDT table that should
be loaded into memory by the OS, and treated as if it was provided by
the
On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 19:27 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 08:23:56AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 18:20 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Mon, Oct
> > 14, 2019 at 11:18:25PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 08:23:56AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 18:20 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 14,
> 2019 at 11:18:25PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:21:11PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > Was there a section in the
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 08:23:56AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> ? examples please.
>From this very thread:
\sEfi\s, \sefi\s, \seFI\s etc should be "EFI"
I'm thinking perhaps start conservatively and catch the most often
misspelled ones in commit messages or comments. "CPU", "SMT", "MCE",
"MCA",
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:55 PM Ard Biesheuvel
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 03:13, Dan Williams wrote:
> >
> > Changes since v6 [1]:
> > - Collect Ard's ack / review on patches 5-7, but not on patch 4 since it
> > needed a non-trivial rework for linker error reported by the 0day robot.
>
On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 18:20 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:18:25PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:21:11PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Was there a section in the patch submission documentation to point out
> > > when people send
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:18:25PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:21:11PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Was there a section in the patch submission documentation to point out
> > when people send patches with all the possible twists for an acronym?
>
> I don't
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 12:53:55PM +0200, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Due to very limited space in the setup_header this patch series introduces new
> kernel_info struct which will be used to convey information from the kernel to
> the bootloader. This way the boot protocol can be extended
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:21:45AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> Currently nothing checks the return value of efi_tpm_eventlog_init,
> but in case that changes in the future make sure an error is
> returned when it fails to determine the tpm final events log
> size.
>
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel
>
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 03:13, Dan Williams wrote:
>
> Changes since v6 [1]:
> - Collect Ard's ack / review on patches 5-7, but not on patch 4 since it
> needed a non-trivial rework for linker error reported by the 0day robot.
>
> - Fixup "efi: Common enable/disable infrastructure for EFI soft
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
