linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/sme: Explicitly map new EFI memmap table as encrypted

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: <15ceb556-0b56-2833-206e-0cf9b9d2cb45@amd.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Dec 2021 08:05:58 -0600
From:   Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/sme: Explicitly map new EFI memmap table as
 encrypted

On 10/27/21 12:04 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/27/21 11:59 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 18:56, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 05:14:35PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>>> I could take it, but since it will ultimately go through -tip anyway,
>>>> perhaps better if they just take it directly? (This will change after
>>>> the next -rc1 though)
>>>>
>>>> Boris?
>>>
>>> Yeah, I'm being told this is not urgent enough to rush in now so you
>>> could queue it into your fixes branch for 5.16 once -rc1 is out and send
>>> it to Linus then. The stable tag is just so it gets backported to the
>>> respective trees.
>>>
>>> But if you prefer I should take it, then I can queue it after -rc1.
>>> It'll boil down to the same thing though.
>>>
>>
>> No, in that case, I can take it myself.
>>
>> Tom, does that work for you?
> 
> Yup, that works for me. Thanks guys!

I don't see this in any tree yet, so just a gentle reminder in case it 
dropped off the radar.

Thanks,
Tom

> 
> Tom
> 
>>