linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 10/14] efi: only print saved efi runtime maps instead of all memmap ranges for kexec

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:06:27 +0800
From:	Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, mjg59@...f.ucam.org, hpa@...or.com,
	James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, vgoyal@...hat.com,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, horms@...ge.net.au,
	kexec@...ts.infradead.org, greg@...ah.com, matt@...sole-pimps.org,
	toshi.kani@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/14] efi: only print saved efi runtime maps instead
 of all memmap ranges for kexec

On 12/17/13 at 04:58pm, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 02:34:36PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > They are moved to efi.c efi_setup_init(), I'm not sure if I expained
> > clear enough, in current code parse_efi_setup only accept one argument
> > phys_addr so I will mapping it with sizeof(struct setup_data) to
> > get the payload size then get the nr_efi_runtime_map. This is a
> > simplification from the old implementation.
> >
> > Based on current implementation, yes, I can add back another argument
> > data_len to avoid the 1st mapping thus I can print efi memmap as you
> > said.
> >
> > In this way I need export another extern for the data_len though.
> 
> Well, think about it: do you want to do the memremap/unmap a second time
> *just* to print the memmap in the efi kernel or do you want to do the
> memremap/unmap only once and do the work once?
> 
> If you say you don't care about speed and wasting cycles then I'm
> certainly fine with that as I've spent more time hinting at the
> performance aspect than I'd like to.

For these non critical path I would prefer the code which should be easier to 
be understood. But yes I have managed to work out what you want in latest
version. Of course I appreciate your time for reviewing those patches.
Thanks.

> 
> > What do you mean about NOPARSE, do you want another function name like
> > save_efi_setup()?
> 
> -ENOPARSE means I cannot parse what you said above.

Ok.

Thanks
Dave
--
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/