linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V10 4/5] arm64: apei: implement arch_apei_get_mem

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: <20150807093750.GB2625@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date:	Fri, 7 Aug 2015 10:37:50 +0100
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Jonathan (Zhixiong) Zhang" <zjzhang@...eaurora.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>,
	Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linaro ACPI Mailman List <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 4/5] arm64: apei: implement
 arch_apei_get_mem_attributes()

On Fri, 07 Aug, at 11:00:17AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> 
> The EFI memory types are not exclusive, and so many regions will have
> all of the above set. The UEFI spec does not define how to interpret
> these superimposed attributes, it is up to the OS to decide on a
> consistent approach.
> 
> For instance, this region (captured from a arm64 boot log with
> uefi_debug set on the command line)
> 
> [Runtime Data       |RUN|  |  |  |   |WB|WT|WC|UC]
> 
> would be mapped uncached when following the above logic, while it
> makes more sense to map using PAGE_KERNEL in this case.

Urgh... good point Ard. Right now this is limited to the GHES driver, so
it's unclear whether this patch is buggy in practice or not.

Does it *ever* make sense to map a region as cacheable (WB/WT/WC) on
arm64 for the APEI/GHES case? Does the firmware handle the necessary
cache flushing?

> From the spec:
> 
> """
> EFI_MEMORY_UC: The memory region supports being configured as not cacheable.
> EFI_MEMORY_WC: The memory region supports being configured as write combining.
> EFI_MEMORY_WT: The memory region supports being configured as
> cacheable with a “write through” policy. Writes that hit in the cache
> will also be written to main memory.
> EFI_MEMORY_WB: The memory region supports being configured as
> cacheable with a “write back” policy. Reads and writes that hit in the
> cache do not propagate to main memory. Dirty data is written back to
> main memory when a new cache line is allocated.
> """
 
Jonathan, can you please provide the EFI memory map region attributes
for the GHES region that requires this series?

-- 
Matt Fleming, 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/