linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Early use of boot service memory

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: <CAOJsxLFkHQ6_f+=CMwfNLykh59TZH5VrWeVEDPCWPF1wiw7tjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:24:17 +0200
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To:	Jerry Hoemann <jerry.hoemann@...com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"list@...ederm.org:DOCUMENTATION <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	list@...ederm.org:MEMORY MANAGEMENT <linux-mm@...ck.org>," 
	<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Early use of boot service memory

Hi Jerry,

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:57 AM,  <jerry.hoemann@...com> wrote:
> I will still point out that as currently used, efi_reserve_boot_services
> is wrong.  A work around for firmware bugs on one platform shouldn't be
> breaking platforms that don't have that bug.  Its just much less likely
> to cause problems with higher crash kernel allocation.

Wrong in what way exactly?

We need efi_reserve_boot_services on _some_ platforms and it's only practical
to do it on all platforms to be able to boot a generic kernel.  Likewise, it
would be more practical to fix crashkernel on all platforms instead of adding a
new code path in the kernel that won't receive as much testing coverage (we
need to reserve boot services by default).

And frankly, I don't understand why 'violating the UEFI specification' is even
brought up.  It's shipped firmware that matters here no matter how broken it
is.  As long as there's a reasonable solution for crashkernel that works on all
platforms, we should go for it instead of special-casing for 'proper firmware'
because it makes testing the kernel more difficult.

                        Pekka
--
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/