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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20151001104455.GA14061@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:44:55 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"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>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	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


* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:

> On 09/27/2015 12:06 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> wrote:
> > 
> >>> If we allocate the EFI runtime as a single virtual memory block then issues 
> >>> like rounding between sections does not even come up as a problem: we map the 
> >>> original offsets and sizes byte by byte.
> >>
> >> Well, by that reasoning, we should not call SetVirtualAddressMap() in the first 
> >> place, and just use the 1:1 mapping UEFI uses natively. This is more than 
> >> feasible on arm64, and I actually fought hard against using 
> >> SetVirtualAddressMap() at all, but I was overruled by others. I think this is 
> >> also trivially possible on X64, since the 1:1 mapping is already active 
> >> alongside the VA mapping.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> Pro: by far the sanest way to map the UEFI tables.
> Con: doesn't actually work (breaks on several known platforms.)

You knew this next question was coming: in what way does it break on known 
platforms?

I.e. do those platforms require a SetVirtualAddressMap() call and break if one 
does not come?

Note that there's 3 models possible:

 - pure 1:1
 - 1:1 plus offset, with SetVirtualAddressMap(offset)
 - bottom up allocator

I don't think we want 'pure' 1:1 physical/virtual (for security reasons, etc.).

So the question is, in what way does our current proposed bottom-up allocator 
differ from 1:1 plus offset? My impression is that they are mostly identical.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/