linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] EFI: Only set regions uncacheable if they support it

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: <4F61FE7E.9060600@zytor.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 Mar 2012 07:36:46 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	matt.fleming@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EFI: Only set regions uncacheable if they support it

On 03/15/2012 07:33 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>> If we map it WB software can do speculative loads from that region which
>> would bring it into the cache.  If we map it UC we might have to CLFLUSH...
> 
> We've already mapped it at this point - we then go back and flag it UC 
> if it's not writeback. The latter seems to be causing problems, I'm not 
> sure we've seen any indication that the former is. And these regions are 
> marked as runtime accessible, so per spec they do need to be mapped into 
> address space...
> 

In other words, it's totally f*cked.  I guess at that point mapping it
WB and letting the BIOS-configured MTRRs deal with the caching
attributes is probably the right thing to do.

I would still really like to understand why we're seeing #MCs... that's
bothersome all by itself.

	-hpa
--
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/