From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Cyrus-Session-Id: sloti22d1t05-2437239-1528043954-2-12027438862547437678 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 3.0 X-Spam-known-sender: no ("Email failed DMARC policy for domain") X-Spam-charsets: plain='UTF-8' X-IgnoreVacation: yes ("Email failed DMARC policy for domain") X-Resolved-to: linux@kroah.com X-Delivered-to: linux@kroah.com X-Mail-from: linux-efi-owner@vger.kernel.org ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; d=messagingengine.com; s=fm2; t= 1528043954; b=fzCcX9mZ7rslQAVBfKL/oreLG0/AJDuMProS5dXA5j6o7fitjs qthiIpLMtYzc7Hs21ucrQNehcXdJcAnxU/ezWUgMNS7fE2qDcuqRP4uxmXmRh0W9 RrLCQwkViQuzp3g1QUHVqfG5baq8ILov4L3/8DBIHtWY/227GyNs/QCWyC24YKMi YmDsnpoevNs15xAlukimk965+w2anQR7A4KLpYMSVoxKruUgKxNWPJeEUuYmOWnC 7eQ3ju0QmQ2tE3FNVnDFg+ULSYtMFmJL0BFrr9eR/31Q3kmq8HFfAWOxz1gR1bRW ouKo5eJqPMCgr8tlHPrAeuYRNPuiBG1GkAJA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:sender:list-id; s= fm2; t=1528043954; bh=vS7j51PvHwm9qN1yIjIQGjaBmQbxOJn4VfHLqpIzOB E=; b=luKVBifRS5TGQnj5zOxyKAkcEVv5UiEyr7zBbV5f6aM+yMDTosW3ggYZdX qLjNV5jglQByES9g/mR2J4+Dk3npnI0LzP258PWHBCpopyqagXm8HN0Zt4vnRI7d 6WSV3Hm/jc8rSlsUK3dkTW7eRrfwbReRmx/7CtYlKkjE/6un53KpfjpFx5IgjvNi cUslq61uglkFd8dAvlnmDbBMvTqlbRY+aTaz0g7jys5+k2mUXOxO1gchPk5N9IzF OlGIqrq/uoA4DTIGIhoeY5SQzON9uwPjgaokNQqL2ad/S66Coo//O64bxpebLI7S WI5uOgXpmImx8IMiam+AgWTYFk6w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx1.messagingengine.com; arc=none (no signatures found); dkim=fail (body has been altered, 1024-bit rsa key sha256) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b=IkX0zX7/ header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google x-bits=1024; dmarc=fail (p=none,has-list-id=yes,d=none) header.from=linaro.org; iprev=pass policy.iprev=209.132.180.67 (vger.kernel.org); spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-efi-owner@vger.kernel.org smtp.helo=vger.kernel.org; x-aligned-from=fail; x-cm=none score=0; x-google-dkim=fail (body has been altered, 2048-bit rsa key) header.d=1e100.net header.i=@1e100.net header.b=MDqmXAlb; x-ptr=pass smtp.helo=vger.kernel.org policy.ptr=vger.kernel.org; x-return-mx=pass smtp.domain=vger.kernel.org smtp.result=pass smtp_org.domain=kernel.org smtp_org.result=pass smtp_is_org_domain=no header.domain=linaro.org header.result=pass header_is_org_domain=yes; x-vs=clean score=-100 state=0 Authentication-Results: mx1.messagingengine.com; arc=none (no signatures found); dkim=fail (body has been altered, 1024-bit rsa key sha256) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b=IkX0zX7/ header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google x-bits=1024; dmarc=fail (p=none,has-list-id=yes,d=none) header.from=linaro.org; iprev=pass policy.iprev=209.132.180.67 (vger.kernel.org); spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-efi-owner@vger.kernel.org smtp.helo=vger.kernel.org; x-aligned-from=fail; x-cm=none score=0; x-google-dkim=fail (body has been altered, 2048-bit rsa key) header.d=1e100.net header.i=@1e100.net header.b=MDqmXAlb; x-ptr=pass smtp.helo=vger.kernel.org policy.ptr=vger.kernel.org; x-return-mx=pass smtp.domain=vger.kernel.org smtp.result=pass smtp_org.domain=kernel.org smtp_org.result=pass smtp_is_org_domain=no header.domain=linaro.org header.result=pass header_is_org_domain=yes; x-vs=clean score=-100 state=0 X-ME-VSCategory: clean X-CM-Envelope: MS4wfLxZsiJbq2BuyKFDP0nrDTlioSl6IfJEaP+gWGwffxEGI+pfzmPWnzwgtNrhrpBYkrDVK6a1h0jpZPxUrIQQnmYkxnICE5fvywGwln/kZeiQa8bmLSF8 fnpbxgsenZnLujtF/wwXTebPB4tW+sk24lT+yLNkzxIMRgHwHRa5SaxH9P0fIdnukD6/7FCkpButYa4p1jG53w7lblBDEHyLUCwhIvLqP1tfBofpZjqPEtLy X-CM-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=WaUilXpX c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=UK1r566ZdBxH71SXbqIOeA==:117 a=UK1r566ZdBxH71SXbqIOeA==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=7mUfYlMuFuIA:10 a=VwQbUJbxAAAA:8 a=20KFwNOVAAAA:8 a=l86AJcckYjSKc5PuxVYA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=x8gzFH9gYPwA:10 a=AjGcO6oz07-iQ99wixmX:22 X-ME-CMScore: 0 X-ME-CMCategory: none Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751198AbeFCQjM (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jun 2018 12:39:12 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f67.google.com ([209.85.214.67]:53797 "EHLO mail-it0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750996AbeFCQjL (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jun 2018 12:39:11 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJPU8We1yHgIxdebOyodhOcrNzVl8JtTC0LJBEHtGF3B6euYFlko6shW3FtHSJDs5FpBadcaXRytDHxyeXmcaM= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20180601125330.25054-1-hdegoede@redhat.com> From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 18:39:09 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] efi/firmware/platform-x86: Add EFI embedded fw support To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Hans de Goede , "Jason A. Donenfeld" , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Greg KH , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Jones , Dave Olsthoorn , Will Deacon , Matt Fleming , David Howells , Mimi Zohar , Josh Triplett , Dmitry Torokhov , Martin Fuzzey , Kalle Valo , Arend Van Spriel , Linus Torvalds , Nicolas Broeking , Bjorn Andersson , Torsten Duwe , Kees Cook , X86 ML , linux-efi , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-efi-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: INBOX X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2 June 2018 at 05:39, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 5:53 AM Hans de Goede wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> Here is v6 of my patch-set to add support for EFI embedded fw to the kernel. >> >> This patch-set applies on top of the "[PATCH v7 00/14] firmware_loader >> changes for v4.18" series from mcgrof. >> >> It now also depends on the series from Andy Lutomirski which allow using the >> sha256 code in a standalone manner. Andy what is the status of those? > > They're currently sort of on hold, since Jason Donenfeld is working on > a more comprehensive solution to the same problem. Jason, I don't > suppose the sha256 part of your patch set is ready? > > Ard, if Jason's patches are too far in the future, would you be okay > with merging a cleaned-up version of my patch for sha256 even if the > sha512 equivalent isn't there? > I'm not sure what you are asking me here. I'd be fine merging a version of Hans's patches that uses a suitable cryptographic hash algorithm, but the implementation of that would likely belong somewhere under crypto/, and so it is ultimately someone else's call (although I'm happy to review) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ard Biesheuvel Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] efi/firmware/platform-x86: Add EFI embedded fw support Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 18:39:09 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20180601125330.25054-1-hdegoede@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Hans de Goede , "Jason A. Donenfeld" , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Greg KH , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Jones , Dave Olsthoorn , Will Deacon , Matt Fleming , David Howells , Mimi Zohar , Josh Triplett , Dmitry Torokhov , Martin Fuzzey , Kalle Valo , Arend Van Spriel , Linus Torvalds , Nicolas Broeking List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 2 June 2018 at 05:39, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 5:53 AM Hans de Goede wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> Here is v6 of my patch-set to add support for EFI embedded fw to the kernel. >> >> This patch-set applies on top of the "[PATCH v7 00/14] firmware_loader >> changes for v4.18" series from mcgrof. >> >> It now also depends on the series from Andy Lutomirski which allow using the >> sha256 code in a standalone manner. Andy what is the status of those? > > They're currently sort of on hold, since Jason Donenfeld is working on > a more comprehensive solution to the same problem. Jason, I don't > suppose the sha256 part of your patch set is ready? > > Ard, if Jason's patches are too far in the future, would you be okay > with merging a cleaned-up version of my patch for sha256 even if the > sha512 equivalent isn't there? > I'm not sure what you are asking me here. I'd be fine merging a version of Hans's patches that uses a suitable cryptographic hash algorithm, but the implementation of that would likely belong somewhere under crypto/, and so it is ultimately someone else's call (although I'm happy to review)