linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/efi: Map EFI memmap entries in-order at runtime

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: <E40EBF14-FD9E-49C0-A7FB-951958F72F79@zytor.com>
Date:	Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:20:22 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Lee, Chun-Yi" <jlee@...e.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
	Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
	James Bottomley <JBottomley@...n.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/efi: Map EFI memmap entries in-order at runtime

I think it "works" because the affected BIOSes don't put spaces between the chunks.  I have discussed this with Matt.

On September 26, 2015 10:01:14 AM PDT, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> So this commit worries me.
>>
>> This bug is a good find, and the fix is obviously needed and urgent,
>but I'm not
>> sure about the implementation at all. (I've Cc:-ed a few more x86 low
>level
>> gents.)
>>
>> * Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
>>> +             /*
>>> +              * Starting in UEFI v2.5 the EFI_PROPERTIES_TABLE
>>> +              * config table feature requires us to map all entries
>>> +              * in the same order as they appear in the EFI memory
>>> +              * map. That is to say, entry N must have a lower
>>> +              * virtual address than entry N+1. This is because the
>>> +              * firmware toolchain leaves relative references in
>>> +              * the code/data sections, which are split and become
>>> +              * separate EFI memory regions. Mapping things
>>> +              * out-of-order leads to the firmware accessing
>>> +              * unmapped addresses.
>>> +              *
>
>I'm clearly missing something.  What is EFI doing that it doesn't care
>how big the gap between sections is but it still requires them to be
>in order?  It's not as though x86_64 has an addressing mode that
>allows only non-negative offsets.
>
>--Andy

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
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/