linux-kernel - Re: kernel 6.2 stuck at boot (efi_call

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: <CAMj1kXF8G3G41cPt+5=nB2D_uEaB_iXh6=3ZcTFTHrpsVm5D5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 18 Mar 2023 11:35:44 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Darren Hart <darren@...amperecomputing.com>
Cc:     Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@...onical.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Paolo Pisati <paolo.pisati@...onical.com>,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel 6.2 stuck at boot (efi_call_rts) on arm64

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 at 23:28, Darren Hart <darren@...amperecomputing.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 07:55:36PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 at 18:52, Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@...onical.com> wrote:
...
> > >
> > > Yay! Success! I just tested your latest efi/urgent (with the fixup) and
> > > system completed the boot without any soft lockups.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for confirming. I'll take that as a tested-by
>
> The solution in the current branch looks like the best approach we have to date
> to address the broadest of affected systems. We could switch the eMAG test to an
> MIDR test I believe (but this won't work for Altra as that would capture all the
> Neoverse v1 cores beyond Altra). I can look into the MIDR test if you think it's
> worthwhile - but since I don't think we can eliminate the SMBIOS string test, it
> doesn't buy us much since we don't need a greedier eMAG test (there aren't more
> of them to match).
>
> Given that some OEM Altra platforms change the processor ID, I don't see a
> better solution currently than adding their the "product name" to the smbios
> string tests unfortunately.
>

Indeed. I spotted a Gigabyte system [0] with a different processor ID,
but with a version we can test for.

So for now, I'll go with

        socid = (u32 *)record->processor_id;
        switch (*socid & 0xffff000f) {
                static char const altra[] = "Ampere(TM) Altra(TM) Processor";
                static char const emag[] = "eMAG";
        default:
                version = efi_get_smbios_string(&record->header, 4,
                                                processor_version);
                if (!version || (strncmp(version, altra, sizeof(altra) - 1) &&
                                 strncmp(version, emag, sizeof(emag) - 1)))
                        break;

                fallthrough;

        case 0x0a160001:        // Altra
        case 0x0a160002:        // Altra Max
                efi_warn("Working around broken SetVirtualAddressMap()\n");
...

which should cover all the affected systems we encountered so far.

I'll push this to linux-next to let it soak for a little bit, and then
send it to Linus somewhere during the week

Thanks,
Ard.


[0] https://pastebin.com/HQLE1yYv