[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAE9FiQVt8Bi==r7pPhSOcSTmmpkjZ4c7O6iphbzFkgbugzKbqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:50:54 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/15] x86, kaslr: get kaslr_enabled back correctly
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> wrote:
>
> "However, the setup_data linked list and thus the element which contains
> kaslr_enabled is chained together using physical addresses. At the
> time when we access it in the kernel proper, we're already running
> with paging enabled and therefore must access it through its virtual
> address."
>
> That's it, now how hard was to explain it that way?
No, I don't think your change log is right.
Actually the old code is using address as value.
if the old code would be like:
kaslr_enabled = (bool)(*(unsigned char *)(pa_data + sizeof(struct setup_data)));
then your change log would be good, but the old code is
kaslr_enabled = (bool)(pa_data + sizeof(struct setup_data));
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists