Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] efi: add support for non-standard capsule headers

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On 25 April 2017 at 16:07, Bryan O'Donoghue
<pure.logic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 25/04/17 16:01, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 25 April 2017 at 16:00, Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Apr, at 08:32:59PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> This picks up the patches Ard send before in [1], including the
>>>> "left-over" patches 6..8.
>>>>
>>>> As Ard suggested, I've taken updated patches 6 and 7 of him from [2]
>>>> which address reviewer comments. Furthermore, I've changed patch 8 to
>>>> factor out the Quark quirk logic from the overloaded
>>>> efi_capsule_setup_info as requested by Matt and also applied Andy's
>>>> suggestion to have a quirk dispatcher table with callbacks.
>>>>
>>>> Tested successfully on the IOT2040 - still without a working Galileo
>>>> board.
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-efi/msg11194.html
>>>> [2] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ardb/linux.git/log/?h=quark-capsule
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Ard Biesheuvel (2):
>>>>   efi/capsule-loader: Redirect calls to efi_capsule_setup_info via weak
>>>>     alias
>>>>   efi/capsule-loader: Use page addresses rather than struct page
>>>>     pointers
>>>>
>>>> Jan Kiszka (1):
>>>>   efi/capsule: Add support for Quark security header
>>>>
>>>>  arch/x86/platform/efi/quirks.c        | 137 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  drivers/firmware/efi/Kconfig          |   9 +++
>>>>  drivers/firmware/efi/capsule-loader.c |  66 ++++++++--------
>>>>  drivers/firmware/efi/capsule.c        |   7 +-
>>>>  include/linux/efi.h                   |  14 +++-
>>>>  5 files changed, 197 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> OK, this looks like it's in good shape to me.
>>>
>>> Ard, are we waiting for anything else before we queue this up for
>>> v4.13?
>>
>> Ideally, we'd get someone to test it with compliant capsule headers,
>> but I'm happy to just queue it for v4.13, and get it in -next asap
>> (i.e., right after the merge window closes)
>>
>
> I'm OOO until Thursday however, I could test this out on a Galileo for
> you with the CSH stripped out. As Jan has pointed out Galileo aka Quark
> x1000 non-secure (not to be called insecure) will just skips past the
> CSH anyway - so - we can give it a conformant capsule by stripping the
> CSH junk off the top.
>
> How about you queue it up and I'll let you know if there's a problem
> Thursday?
>

That would be highly appreciated, thanks.