[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170109130033.GH16838@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 13:00:33 +0000
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Mika Penttilä <mika.penttila@...tfour.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
"linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] efi: efi_mem_reserve(): don't reserve through
memblock after mm_init()
On Fri, 06 Jan, at 07:28:40PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> This is my point exactly. But it appears efi_free_boot_services()
> occurs much later than I thought, and so there is a sizabe time window
> where SLAB is up but reservations can still be made. But we don't
> check whether efi_free_boot_services() has been called.
True. This has only been correct thus far because all code has been
audited, but adding a check to catch future offenders is a good idea.
> Another problem is that we never check that the reservation is
> covered by a BootServicesData region, which are the only ones that
> are guaranteed to be retained up to this point.
The runtime regions are guaranteed to be retained too.
Again, this shouldn't actually be a problem today, but the potential
for breakage here warrants some kind of check and loud warning.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists