linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64/efi: Don't pad between EFI_MEMORY

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: <20150927104014.GA7631@pd.tnic>
Date:	Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:40:14 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64/efi: Don't pad between EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME
 regions

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 09:06:44AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Could we please re-list all the arguments pro and contra of 1:1 physical mappings, 
> in a post that also explains the background so that more people can chime in, not 
> just people versed in EFI internals? It's very much possible that a bad decision 
> was made.

The main reason why we did the additional, top-down mapping was kexec
kernel wanting to use UEFI runtime facilities too and the braindead
design of SetVirtualAddressMap() being callable only once per system
boot. So we had to have stable mappings which are valid in the kexec-ed
kernel too.

But this was long time ago and I most certainly have forgotten all the
details.

And now I'm wondering why didn't we do the 1:1 thing and rebuild the
exact same EFI pagetable in the kexec-ed kernel? Because when we do
an EFI call, we switch to the special pagetable so why didn't we make
the kexec-ed kernel rebuild the 1:1 pagetable which it can use for EFI
calls...

Hmm, again, I've forgotten a lot of details so I'm sure Matt will come
in and say "No, you can't do that because..."

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
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/