linux-kernel - Re: [tip:x86/efi] x86/efi: Check for unsafe dealing with FPU state in irq ctxt

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:	Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:43:50 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org" 
	<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/efi] x86/efi: Check for unsafe dealing with FPU state
 in irq ctxt

On 06/05/2014 09:37 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 09:31:12AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> The bottom line is that we can't call EFI from a context where we can't
>> use the FPU.  Or specifically, we can't then resume execution.
> 
> Can't we allocate a save-state area, stash the state there and let EFI
> scribble over it? When EFI returns, we scribble over it back assuming it
> has done the saving/restoring on its own.

I'm sorry I don't follow.

	-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/