[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z0l0sMgZPWpMlBXn@wunner.de>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 09:00:48 +0100
From: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Zorro Lang <zlang@...hat.com>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next/fixes] arm64/mm: Fix false-positive
!virt_addr_valid() for kernel image
On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 03:18:57PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> No; I meant that the test could use lm_alias() on the test vectors
> before passing those to sg_set_buf(), when the test code knows by
> construction that those vectors happen to be part of the kernel image.
> That'll work on all architectures.
Herbert doesn't want callers of the sign/verify API to do the mapping:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/Z0A2W1FTTPt9PeI5@gondor.apana.org.au/
> That said, looking at the code it appears that testmgr.c can be built as
> a module, so the test vectors could be module/vmalloc addresses rather
> than virt/linear or image addresses. Given that, I don't think the
> changes suggested here are sufficient, as module addresses should still
> be rejected.
Ah, I hadn't considered the modular case. Good point!
Thanks for the explanation and for taking a look!
Lukas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists