linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] EFI boot stub memory map fix

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:	Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:47:41 -0700
From:	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Linn Crosetto <linn@...com>, Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] EFI boot stub memory map fix

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:06 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> I would strongly disagree that option 2 is the cleaner solution.

Agreed.

>
> Linn Crosetto <linn@...com> wrote:
>>I realize the EFI stub for ARM patches are in flight,
>>
>>https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/9/554
>>
>>and overlap with some of the files but I wanted to send these out for
>>comment.
>>
>>This series fixes a problem with EFI memory maps larger than 128
>>entries when
>>booting using the EFI boot stub, which results in overflowing the
>>e820_map in
>>boot_params and an eventual halt when checking the map size in
>>sanitize_e820_map().
>>
>>The fix implemented is to add the EFI memory map from setup_arch() via
>>a
>>memory_setup hook.
>>
>>Two options were considered:
>>
>> 1. Use the SETUP_E820_EXT setup_data type to add the extra entries.
>>
>>2. Create a memory_setup function to be enabled when the EFI memory map
>>is
>>    needed.
>>
>>Option 2 appeared to be the cleaner solution, reducing duplication with
>>existing code, given a reasonable mechanism for determining when to
>>replace the default memory_setup function.

If boot_loader could create setup_data with SETUP_E820_EXT,
efi_stub should go that path too.
We should not add another path.

Thanks

Yinghai
--
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/