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:	Fri, 21 Jun 2013 03:05:30 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	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

If you cap it you are basically imposing a constraint on the firmware and may not run properly (or at least have to turn off EFI runtime calls with all that implies.)  It might be good to have a sanity check but it needs to be pretty generous.

Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:

>On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 03:35:24PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 06/20/2013 11:47 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> > 
>> > I guess we can do a top-down allocation, starting from the highest
>> > virtual addresses:
>> > 
>> > EFI_HIGHEST_ADDRESS
>> > |
>> > | size1
>> > |
>> > --> region1
>> > |
>> > | size2
>> > |
>> > --> region2
>> > 
>> > ...
>> > 
>> > and we make EFI_HIGHEST_ADDRESS be the same absolute number on
>every
>> > system.
>> > 
>> > hpa, is this close to what you had in mind? It would be prudent to
>> > verify whether this will suit well with the kexec virtual space
>layout
>> > though...
>> > 
>> 
>> This would work really well, I think.  The tricky part here is to
>pick a
>> safe EFI_HIGHEST_ADDRESS as it is an ABI.
>> 
>> My preference would be to make EFI_HIGHEST_ADDRESS = -4 GB, which is
>> *not* what Windows uses, but will leave the high negative range
>clear,
>> and allows a range where we can grow down without much risk of
>> interfering with anything else.
>
>Hmm, cool. Let me see whether my primitive math still has it:
>
>-(4 << 30) = 0xffffffff00000000.
>
>Staring at Documentation/x86/x86_64/mm.txt, that's right in the unused
>hole, sandwiched between:
>
>ffffea0000000000 - ffffeaffffffffff (=40 bits) virtual memory map (1TB)
>
>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - ffffffff00000000 (=XX bits, not a lot :-), maybe 4,
>i.e. 64G) EFI
>
>ffffffff80000000 - ffffffffa0000000 (=512 MB)  kernel text mapping,
>from phys 0
>
>Now, if we go and do that, what are we going to say for the lower
>bound,
>in case later someone wants to use some more of the rest of the unused
>hole? Should we limit it to say
>
>0xffffffff00000000 -
>0xfffffff000000000 = 64G max EFI mappable region.
>
>Or am I too generous? The remaining hole is around
>
>(0xfffffff000000000 - 0xffffeaffffffffff) >> 40 = 20TB.
>
>Thanks.

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.
--
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/