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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 12:15:32 +0000 From: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk> To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> Cc: Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-team@...com, "kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-efi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: kexec regression since 4.9 caused by efi On Thu, 09 Mar, at 12:53:36PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > Hi Omar, > > Thanks for tracking this down. > > I wonder if this is an unintended side effect of the way we repurpose > the EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME attribute in efi_arch_mem_reserve(). AFAIUI, > splitting memory map entries should only be necessary for regions that > are not runtime memory regions to begin with, and so whether their > virtual mapping address makes sense or not should be irrelevant. > > Perhaps this only illustrates my lack of understanding of the x86 way > of doing this, so perhaps Matt can shed some light on this? Sorry for the delay. Yes, Ard is correct. It's not necessary to split/reserve memory regions that already have the EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME attribute.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists