[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c0cb8a50-e860-169b-ee0c-7eb4db7c3fda@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 15:50:32 -0500
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<x86@...nel.org>, <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Toshimitsu Kani <toshi.kani@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 17/32] x86/mm: Add support to access boot related data
in the clear
On 5/18/2017 4:02 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 01:54:39PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> I was worried what the compiler might do when CONFIG_EFI is not set,
>> but it appears to take care of it. I'll double check though.
>
> There's a efi_enabled() !CONFIG_EFI version too, so should be fine.
>
>> I may introduce a length variable to capture data->len right after
>> paddr_next is set and then have just a single memunmap() call before
>> the if check.
>
> Yap.
>
>> I tried that, but calling an "__init" function (early_memremap()) from
>> a non "__init" function generated warnings. I suppose I can pass in a
>> function for the map and unmap but that looks worse to me (also the
>> unmap functions take different arguments).
>
> No, the other way around: the __init function should call the non-init
> one and you need the non-init one anyway for memremap_is_setup_data().
>
The "worker" function would be doing the loop through the setup data,
but since the setup data is mapped inside the loop I can't do the __init
calling the non-init function and still hope to consolidate the code.
Maybe I'm missing something here...
Thanks,
Tom
>> This is like the chicken and the egg scenario. In order to determine if
>> an address is setup data I have to explicitly map the setup data chain
>> as decrypted. In order to do that I have to supply a flag to explicitly
>> map the data decrypted otherwise I wind up back in the
>> memremap_is_setup_data() function again and again and again...
>
> Oh, fun.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists