irski; Roy
> Franz; James Bottomley; Linux FS Devel; Anvin, H Peter; 'Matt Fleming'
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/1] efi: a misc char interface for user to update efi
> firmware
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:09:50AM +, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> > So, my conclusion is
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:09:50AM +, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> So, my conclusion is that this module is not able to be tested on QEMU
> environment.
That's not the point.
The module should better handle writing to the device file gracefully
and not explode. Regardless of whether it is runnin
> -Original Message-
> From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@alien8.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 4:00 AM
>
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:47:29AM +, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> > By looking at your dmesg log, the above print out message seem that
> > someone has called the flush()
> -Original Message-
> From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@alien8.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 4:15 AM
>
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:17:28AM +, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> > This is not a return value to indicate what is going now. It is a flag
> > used in "cap_info->index" w
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 07:17:28AM +, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> This is not a return value to indicate what is going now. It is a flag
> used in "cap_info->index" which positive value has a meaning of index
> number. I am using the negative value for the flag which similar to
> the implementati
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:47:29AM +, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> By looking at your dmesg log, the above print out message seem that
> someone has called the flush() after the write(2). In my environment, flush()
> only being called in 2 places which are before write(2) and during close(2).
> Th
> -Original Message-
> From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@alien8.de]
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2015 8:59 PM
>
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:11:23AM +, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> > Hmm If I combine these 2 flags to become one as
> > "NO_MORE_WRITE_ACTION" to better describing the
> -Original Message-
> From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@alien8.de]
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2015 6:30 PM
> >
> > Example method to load the capsule binary:
> > cat firmware.bin > /dev/efi_capsule_loader
>
> $ cat "some_dumb_file" > /dev/efi_capsule_loader
> Killed
>
> and in dmesg:
On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:11:23AM +, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> Hmm If I combine these 2 flags to become one as
> "NO_MORE_WRITE_ACTION" to better describing the situation, you Okay
> with it?
I don't understand, why combine?
Why not simply make UPLOAD_DONE a positive value:
#define UPL
> -Original Message-
> From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@alien8.de]
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2015 6:58 PM
>
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 10:52:52AM +, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> > Could you share me your dumb file? I did perform negative test, but I did
> > not get these dump stack in
On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 10:52:52AM +, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> Could you share me your dumb file? I did perform negative test, but I did
> not get these dump stack in dmesg. Thanks.
I think almost any file works:
cat /bin/ls > /dev/efi_capsule_loader
> > > +#define UPLOAD_DONE -1
> >
> > I
> -Original Message-
> From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@alien8.de]
> Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2015 6:30 PM
> >
> > Example method to load the capsule binary:
> > cat firmware.bin > /dev/efi_capsule_loader
>
> $ cat "some_dumb_file" > /dev/efi_capsule_loader Killed
>
> and in dmesg:
>
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 01:58:57AM +0800, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
> From: "Kweh, Hock Leong"
>
> Introducing a kernel module to expose capsule loader interface
> (misc char device file note) for user to upload capsule binaries.
>
> Example method to load the capsule binary:
> cat firmware.bin >
From: "Kweh, Hock Leong"
Introducing a kernel module to expose capsule loader interface
(misc char device file note) for user to upload capsule binaries.
Example method to load the capsule binary:
cat firmware.bin > /dev/efi_capsule_loader
This patch also export efi_capsule_supported() function
14 matches
Mail list logo
