linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] x86/efi: Unmap EFI boot services code/data regions from 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: <20181029144046.GC744@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 29 Oct 2018 15:40:46 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] x86/efi: Unmap EFI boot services code/data
 regions from efi_pgd

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 02:38:44PM -0700, Sai Praneeth Prakhya wrote:
> +int kernel_unmap_pages_in_pgd(pgd_t *pgd, unsigned long address,
> +			      unsigned long numpages)
> +{
> +	int retval;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * The typical sequence for unmapping is to find a pte through
> +	 * lookup_address_in_pgd() (ideally, it should never return NULL because
> +	 * the address is already mapped) and change it's protections.
> +	 * As pfn is the *target* of a mapping, it's not useful while unmapping.
> +	 */
> +	struct cpa_data cpa = {
> +		.vaddr		= &address,
> +		.pgd		= pgd,
> +		.numpages	= numpages,
> +		.mask_set	= __pgprot(0),
> +		.mask_clr	= __pgprot(_PAGE_PRESENT | _PAGE_RW),
> +		.flags		= 0,
> +	};
> +
> +	retval = __change_page_attr_set_clr(&cpa, 0);
> +	__flush_tlb_all();

How is that not a TLB invalidation bug ?

> +
> +	return retval;
> +}