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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:07:19 +0300 From: Evgeniy Baskov <baskov@...ras.ru> To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>, lvc-project@...uxtesting.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/16] x86/build: Make generated PE more spec compliant On 2022-10-19 10:39, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Tue, 6 Sept 2022 at 12:42, Evgeniy Baskov <baskov@...ras.ru> wrote: >> >> Currently kernel image is not fully compliant PE image, so it may >> fail to boot with stricter implementations of UEFI PE loaders. >> >> Set minimal alignments and sizes specified by PE documentation [1] >> referenced by UEFI specification [2]. Align PE header to 8 bytes. > > >> Generate '.reloc' section with 2 entries and set reloc data directory. > > Why? It seems to me that I saw minimal size requirement in MS documentation, but now I cannot find the proof of my words, so I've probably misread. So I'll drop this change. > > >> >> To make code more readable refactor tools/build.c: >> - Use mmap() to access kernel image. >> - Generate sections dynamically. >> - Setup sections protection. Since we cannot fit every >> needed section, set a part of protection flags >> dynamically during initialization. This step is omitted >> if CONFIG_EFI_DXE_MEM_ATTRIBUTES is not set. >> > > If the commit log of a patch contains a bulleted list of the changes > that it implements, it is a very strong indicator that it needs to be > split up. Presenting this as a big ball of changes makes the life of a > reviewed unnecessarily hard. > Sorry for that, I'll try to separate this into several patches.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists