On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:49:39AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/10/18 1:03 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >
> > How would that help? The garabge data written could have the correct
> > terminal sentinel value by chance.
> >
> > That's why I re-used an existing field in setup_header (the
On November 10, 2018 7:22:29 AM PST, Juergen Gross wrote:
>On 09/11/2018 23:23, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> I just noticed this patch -- I missed it because the cover message
>> seemed far more harmless so I didn't notice this change.
>>
>> THIS PATCH IS FATALLY WRONG AND NEEDS TO BE IMMEDIATELY
On 11/10/18 1:03 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>
> How would that help? The garabge data written could have the correct
> terminal sentinel value by chance.
>
> That's why I re-used an existing field in setup_header (the version) to
> let grub tell the kernel which part of setup_header was written by
On 09/11/2018 23:23, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I just noticed this patch -- I missed it because the cover message
> seemed far more harmless so I didn't notice this change.
>
> THIS PATCH IS FATALLY WRONG AND NEEDS TO BE IMMEDIATELY REVERTED BEFORE
> ANYONE STARTS RELYING ON IT; IT HAS THE
On 10/11/2018 08:16, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/9/18 11:02 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes. We know that and it is resolved by:
>>>
>>> a) the length field in setup_header;
>>> b) the "sentinel" field which catches legacy non-compliant bootloaders.
>>
>> Doesn't help for boot loaders
On 11/9/18 11:02 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>
>> Yes. We know that and it is resolved by:
>>
>> a) the length field in setup_header;
>> b) the "sentinel" field which catches legacy non-compliant bootloaders.
>
> Doesn't help for boot loaders reading struct setup_header from the
> kernel image and
On 10/11/2018 07:32, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately there are many major distros shipping boot loaders which
>> write crap data past the end of setup_header.
>>
>
> Yes. We know that and it is resolved by:
>
> a) the length field in setup_header;
> b) the "sentinel" field which
>
> Unfortunately there are many major distros shipping boot loaders which
> write crap data past the end of setup_header.
>
Yes. We know that and it is resolved by:
a) the length field in setup_header;
b) the "sentinel" field which catches legacy non-compliant bootloaders.
>>
>> This field
On 09/11/2018 23:23, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I just noticed this patch -- I missed it because the cover message
> seemed far more harmless so I didn't notice this change.
>
> THIS PATCH IS FATALLY WRONG AND NEEDS TO BE IMMEDIATELY REVERTED BEFORE
> ANYONE STARTS RELYING ON IT; IT HAS THE
One more aspect on this patchset: when CONFIG_ACPI_TABLE_UPGRADE was
inroduced, it was seen as a security problem and disabled by default
(unlike for device tree, where feeding entries from the boot loader is
standard operating procedure.)
Thus functionally makes that possible to bypass that
I just noticed this patch -- I missed it because the cover message
seemed far more harmless so I didn't notice this change.
THIS PATCH IS FATALLY WRONG AND NEEDS TO BE IMMEDIATELY REVERTED BEFORE
ANYONE STARTS RELYING ON IT; IT HAS THE POTENTIAL OF BREAKING THE
BOOTLOADER PROTOCOL FOR ALL FUTURE.
11 matches
Mail list logo
