linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv13 4/9] x86/boot/compressed: Handle unaccepted memory

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]

Date:   Fri, 2 Jun 2023 18:09:00 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        marcelo.cerri@...onical.com, tim.gardner@...onical.com,
        khalid.elmously@...onical.com, philip.cox@...onical.com,
        aarcange@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Liam Merwick <liam.merwick@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv13 4/9] x86/boot/compressed: Handle unaccepted memory

On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 06:36:44PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> I don't see why it is simpler. It looks unnecessary noisy to me.

Noisy?

I have no clue what you mean.

It is regular:

	if (bla && flu)

vs

	if (bla)
		return flu();

It is about having regular patterns which can be recognized at a quick
glance by those who get to stare at that code constantly.

> Configuration table suppose to be present, even if unaccepted memory is
> not supported. Something is very wrong if it is missing.

I am not sure if it is the decompressor's job to do such validation
- I guess this is something the EFI code should do.

> I will downgrade it warn().

Yes, or simply return here without accepting memory - plain and simple.

> I wanted to keep unaccepted_table private to the libstub/unaccepted_memory.c.
> The setter provides a good spot for documentation to guide unaccepted
> memory enablers for other archs.
> 
> Still want replace it with direct assignment?

No clue. Why would you want to keep a variable in the libstub private
which is not even in kernel proper, AFAICT?

> Okay, I will make init_unaccepted_memory() return true if unaccepted
> memory is present and hide defined it always-false for !UNACCEPTED_MEMORY.
> So this hunk will look this way:
> 
> 	if (init_unaccepted_memory()) {
> 		debug_putstr("Accepting memory... ");
> 		accept_memory(__pa(output), __pa(output) + needed_size);
> 	}

Yap, thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette