linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] firmware: dmi_scan: Pass dmi_entry

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: <20200120121927.GJ32742@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:19:27 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
        matt@...eblueprint.co.uk, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] firmware: dmi_scan: Pass dmi_entry_point to
 kexec'ed kernel

On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 06:57:21PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> Ccing efi people.
> 
> On 12/16/16 at 02:33pm, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 14:18:58 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 10:32 +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> > > > On 12/15/16 at 12:28pm, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > > I am no kexec expert but this confuses me. Shouldn't the second
> > > > > kernel have access to the EFI systab as the first kernel does? It
> > > > > includes many more pointers than just ACPI and DMI tables, and it
> > > > > would seem inconvenient to have to pass all these addresses
> > > > > individually explicitly.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, in modern linux kernel, kexec has the support for EFI, I think it
> > > > should work naturally at least in x86_64.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for this good news!
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately Intel Galileo is 32-bit platform.
> > 
> > If it was done for X86_64 then maybe it can be generalized to X86?
> 
> For X86_64, we have a new way for efi runtime memmory mapping, in i386
> code it still use old ioremap way. It is impossible to use same way as
> the X86_64 since the virtual address space is limited.
> 
> But maybe for 32bit, kexec kernel can run in physical mode, but I'm not
> sure, I would suggest Andy to do a test first with efi=noruntime for
> kexec 2nd kernel.

Guys, it was quite a long no hear from you. As I told you the proposed work
around didn't help. Today I found that Microsoft Surface 3 also affected
by this.

Can we apply these patches for now until you will find better solution?

P.S. I may resend them rebased on recent vanilla.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko