linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] arm64, thunder: Add initial dts for Cavium Thunder SoC

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140801180035.GF3264@leverpostej>
Date:	Fri, 1 Aug 2014 19:00:35 +0100
From:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gpkulkarni@...il.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Robert Richter <rrichter@...ium.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Radha Mohan Chintakuntla <rchintakuntla@...ium.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"leif.lindholm@...aro.org" <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] arm64, thunder: Add initial dts for Cavium Thunder
 SoC

On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 06:04:11PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> Mark,

Hi Robert,

> On 31.07.14 12:33:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:12:33PM +0100, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> > >    We mark RAM used by ATF as secure-RAM, however we don't support
> > >    secure/non-secure address aliasing.
> > >    i.e, a DRAM address that can be referenced from both a secure PA and a
> > >    non-secure PA is not allowed.
> >
> > What exactly do you mean by "not allowed"?
> 
> It actually means "not possible" since secure and non-secure memory is
> kept in separate address ranges.

I understand that the two are separate physical address spaces, but
Ganapatrao's reply was somewhat ambiguous and it wasn't clear to me that
the memory was actually marked as secure.

> > If Linux maps that memory, what happens?
> >
> > What if Linux tried to read or write to it?
> >
> > If Linux should not map that memory, it should not be described in the
> > memory map to begin with.
> 
> Linux never will see secure-RAM. Firmware must be sure to report the
> correct non-secure memory ranges to the OS (e.g. unsecure mem size =
> total size - secure mem size).

Ok, that's what I had hoped for and that makes sense.

The issue was that the memory node contained an address range that was
supposedly secure-only (which Linux could attempt to map), which was
'protected' with a /memreserve/ (which does not stop it from being
mapped).

Given they are unnecessary (unless you want to bypass EFI for some
reason) they can be dropped.

Thanks,
Mark.
--
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/