linux-kernel - Re: RIP MTRR - status update for upcoming v4.2

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: <20150612005221.GD23057@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 2015 02:52:21 +0200
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>
To:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
Cc:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>,
	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Jej B <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Ville Syrjälä <syrjala@....fi>,
	Ville Syrjälä 
	<ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fbdev <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
	Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Subject: Re: RIP MTRR - status update for upcoming v4.2

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 05:23:16PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 13:36 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>  :
> > Pending RIP MTRR patches
> > ====================
> > 
> > There are a few pending series so I wanted to provide a status update
> > on those series.
> > 
> > mtrr: bury MTRR - unexport mtrr_add() and mtrr_del()
> > 
> > This is the nail on the MTRR coffin, it will prevent future direct
> > access to MTRR code. This will not be posted until all of the below
> > patches are in and merged. A possible next step here might be to
> > consider separating PAT code from MTRR code and making PAT a first
> > class citizen, enabling distributions to disable MTRR code in the
> > future. I thought this was possible but for some reason I recently
> > thought that there was one possible issue to make this happen. I
> > suppose we won't know unless we try, unless of course someone already
> > knows, Toshi?
> 
> There are two usages on MTRRs:
>  1) MTRR entries set by firmware
>  2) MTRR entries set by OS drivers
> 
> We can obsolete 2), but we have no control over 1).  As UEFI firmwares
> also set this up, this usage will continue to stay.  So, we should not
> get rid of the MTRR code that looks up the MTRR entries, while we have
> no need to modify them.
> 
> Such MTRR entries provide safe guard to /dev/mem, which allows
> privileged user to access a range that may require UC mapping while
> the /dev/mem driver blindly maps it with WB.  MTRRs converts WB to UC in
> such a case.
> 
> UEFI memory table has memory attribute, which describes cache types
> supported in physical memory ranges.  However, this information gets
> lost when it it is converted to e820 table.

Is there no way to modify CPU capability bits upon boot and kick UEFI
to re-evaluate ? In such UEFI cases what happens for instance when
Xen is used which does not support MTRR?

  Luis
--
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/