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: <CAKv+Gu8GpaHRL8EZxJCs8dw8ngFVoYNP1Q=hqhZ=LOF+3vXPLw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:41:23 +0200
From:	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	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@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.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

On 29 September 2015 at 11:12, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>> > except that I don't think
>> > the condition on 64-bit makes any sense:
>> >
>> > +       if (!efi_enabled(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP) && efi_enabled(EFI_64BIT)) {
>> >
>> > I can see us being nervous wrt. backported patches, but is there any strong reason
>> > to not follow this up with a third (non-backported) patch that changes this to:
>> >
>> > +       if (!efi_enabled(EFI_OLD_MEMMAP)) {
>> >
>> > for v4.4?
>> >
>>
>> The 32-bit side essentially implements the old memmap only, which is the the
>> bottom-up version. So old memmap will be implied by 32-bit but not set in the
>> EFI flags, resulting in the reverse enumeration being used with the bottom-up
>> mapping logic. The net result of that is that we create the same problem for
>> 32-bit that we are trying to solve for 64-bit, i.e., the regions will end up in
>> reverse order in the VA mapping.
>>
>> To deobfuscate this particular conditional, we could set EFI_OLD_MEMMAP
>> unconditionally on 32-bit x86. Or we could reshuffle variables and conditionals
>> in various other way.
>
> Setting EFI_OLD_MEMMAP would be fine, if doing that has no bad side effects.
>
>> [...] I am not convinced that the overall end result will be any better though.
>
> That's not true, we change an obscure, implicit dependency on 32-bit detail to an
> explicit EFI_OLD_MEMMAP flag that shows exactly what's happening. That's a clear
> improvement.
>

OK, fair enough. I agree that setting the flag for 32-bit would be
semantically correct. I will leave it to Matt to comment whether it is
reasonable in terms of changes to other parts of the code.

Thanks,
Ard.
--
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/