[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200406172102.GF2520@zn.tnic>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 19:21:02 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
Cc: Sergey Shatunov <me@...k.pw>, hpa@...or.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
mingo@...hat.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
initramfs@...r.kernel.org,
Donovan Tremura <neurognostic@...tonmail.ch>,
Harald Hoyer <harald@...er.xyz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/boot/compressed/64: Remove .bss/.pgtable from
bzImage
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 03:29:18PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > What do you think of the other problem -- that's actually worse to fix,
> > as it won't just be when kaslr is disabled, the startup_64 code will do
> > relocation to the end of init_size and clobber the initrd before getting
> > to the kaslr code, so it will break as soon as the firmware loads the
> > "unified kernel image" at a 2Mb-aligned address. The only thing I can
> > think of is to just unconditionally call efi_relocate_kernel if we were
> > entered via handover_entry?
> >
>
> Yes, that seems to be the most robust approach.
The commit in question is this one:
d5cdf4cfeac9 ("efi/x86: Don't relocate the kernel unless necessary")
I presume?
I'm guessing it can simply be reverted as it doesn't fix a bug but it is
just an optimization... provided I'm not missing something, of course.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists