linux-kernel - Re: efi_enabled(EFI

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+Gu_k45_r0mke6ELb3Pi05BnJiEMqweJRfsy7S55FzCpF7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:53:21 +0200
From:	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Cc:	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	Xen Devel <Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@...aro.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: efi_enabled(EFI_PARAVIRT) use

On 29 April 2016 at 16:39, Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr, at 11:34:45AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> > Also, it would be nice to have all things EFI in a single tree, the conflicts are
>> > going to be painful! There's very little reason not to carry this kind of commit:
>> >
>> >  arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c           |  6 +++++
>> >  drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c | 17 +++++++++-----
>> >  drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c         | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> >  3 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > in the EFI tree.
>>
>> That's true. I'll drop this commit from xentip and let Matt pick it up
>> or request changes as he sees fit.
>
> One small change I think would be sensible to make is to expand
> EFI_PARAVIRT into a few more bits to clearly indicate the quirks on
> Xen, and in the process, to delete EFI_PARAVIRT.
>
> That should address Ingo's major concern, and also make it much easier
> to rework the code in a piecemeal fashion.
>
> Could somebody enumerate the things that make Xen (dom0) different on
> arm* compared with bare metal EFI boot? The list I made for x86 was,
>
>   1. Has no EFI memory map
>   2. Runtime regions do not need to be mapped
>   3. Cannot call SetVirtualAddressMap()
>   4. /sys/firmware/efi/fw_vendor is invisible
>
> The first maps to not setting EFI_MEMMAP, the second to not setting
> EFI_RUNTIME. If we add EFI_ALREADY_VIRTUAL and EFI_FW_VENDOR_INVISIBLE
> to efi.flags that should cover everything on x86. Does arm* require
> anything else?

I already proposed when this patch was first under review to make the
arm_enable_runtime_services() function bail early without error if the
EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES flag is already set, and the xen code could set
that bit as well when it installs its paravirtualized alternatives. I
don't remember exactly why that was shot down, though, but I think it
is the only reason this code introduces references to EFI_PARAVIRT in
the first place.