linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Add Isolated Memory Regions for Quark X1000

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: <20150109034439.GA9311@vmdeb7>
Date:	Thu, 8 Jan 2015 19:44:40 -0800
From:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To:	Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@...us-software.ie>
Cc:	"Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" 
	<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"andy.shevchenko@...il.com" <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Add Isolated Memory Regions for Quark X1000

On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 03:11:35PM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> 
> >Suggest to split the imr_del() into 2 functions:-
> >(1) by address + size
> >(2) by IMR index
> >At current implementation, it does not support (2) only because it fails at
> >imr_check_range().
> 
> Hi Boon Leong.
> 
> I'll have a think about that :)
> 
> Just on imr_del() though, it does support removal by way of index.
> 
> +static void __init intel_galileo_imr_init(void)
> +{
> +	unsigned long base  = virt_to_phys(&_text);
> +	unsigned long size = virt_to_phys(&_sinittext) - base - IMR_ALIGN;
> +	int i, ret;
> +
> +	/* Tear down all existing unlocked IMRs */
> +	for (i = 0; i <= QUARK_X1000_IMR_NUM; i++)
> +		imr_del(i, 0, 0);
> 
> That's what the platform code has to do for every unlocked IMR, to make sure
> there are no stale IMRs left that could conflict with the EFI memory map !

I'm OK with a single function so long as by index works without having to
specify the address. Please update the kernel doc to describe this usage though.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/