linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/11] efi: Refactor efi_memmap_init

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]

Date:	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:19:52 +0100
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:	Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.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>,
	Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] efi: Refactor efi_memmap_init_early() into
 arch-neutral code

On Fri, 24 Jun, at 01:44:48PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> 
> This assignment breaks the calculation of mapsize in
> arm_enable_runtime_services(), so you should probably fold the
> following hunk into this patch.
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c
> b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c
> index ce1424672d89..1884347a3ef6 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c
> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static int __init arm_enable_runtime_services(void)
> 
>         pr_info("Remapping and enabling EFI services.\n");
> 
> -       mapsize = efi.memmap.map_end - efi.memmap.map;
> +       mapsize = efi.memmap.desc_size * efi.memmap.nr_map;
> 
>         if (efi_memmap_init_late(efi.memmap.phys_map, mapsize)) {
>                 pr_err("Failed to remap EFI memory map\n");
 
Thanks Ard, I folded this in.

> With that change (or an equivalent one):
> 
> Tested-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>

Are those tags for just this patch or the entire series?

FYI, my plan right now is to queue this for v4.9 because it's fairly
invasive and I expect some fallout. If anyone has a problem with that
and knows of a reason it should be queued sooner, please let me know.