linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] x86, efi: Calling __pa() with an ioremap'd address is invalid

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]

Message-ID: <20111107203752.GA27875@srcf.ucam.org>
Date:	Mon, 7 Nov 2011 20:37:52 +0000
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	Huang Ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86, efi: Calling __pa() with an ioremap'd address
 is invalid

On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 12:36:13PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Yes, I think it makes a lot of sense.  If we need to introduce new
> meta-types to deal with the fact that there are EFI types that don't map
> to E820, then so be it... and this is *exactly* why we want the EFI
> setup stub to be part of the kernel image and not off in a separate
> bootloader, requiring a stable interface...

I don't disagree, it's just going to be an absolute pain to manage that 
in a secure boot world. Looking at the code, we actually already seem to 
have decided to start just making up E820 types, so maybe we should just 
do that...

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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/