linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v2 0/4] EFI 1:1 mapping

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:38:04 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linux EFI <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 0/4] EFI 1:1 mapping

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 05:21:15PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Yes, kexec needs a different solution.

No need. If we say, "efi=use_11_map", the 1:1 map will be shoved down
SetVirtualAddressMap. Otherwise the high mappings.

> Because firmware images don't always update all of the pointers, and
> so will crash if the 1:1 mappings aren't present.

Ok, so it sounds like we want to *always* create both mappings but,
depending on what we want, to shove down SetVirtualAddressMap a
different set. And the 1:1 map will be the optional one which we give
SetVirtualAddressMap only when user wants it, i.e. when booting with
"efi=1:1_map".

Makes sense?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/