linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/2] efi/memattr: Use desc_size instead of total size to check for corruption

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: <c5f68f9f-1494-426b-a5b2-bf6c1483c02f@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:48:42 +0000
From: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, devel@...2.groups.io,
 kexec@...ts.infradead.org, hannes@...xchg.org, x86@...nel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, leitao@...ian.org, gourry@...rry.net,
 kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] efi/memattr: Use desc_size instead of total size to
 check for corruption



On 20/01/2025 11:29, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 at 11:50, Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20/01/2025 10:32, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 at 11:27, Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ...
>>>> Hi Ard,
>>>>
>>>> Just wanted to check how should we proceed forward? Should we try and fix the warning
>>>> and corruption during kexec as done in this series or not initialize memory attributes
>>>> table at all in kexec boot? I would prefer fixing the issues as in this series.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would prefer kexec boot on x86 to disregard the memory attributes
>>> table entirely.
>>
>> Would you like Dave to send something like
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CALu+AoS8tb=HgaybDw5OG4A1QbOXHvuidpu0ynmz-nE1nBqzTA@mail.gmail.com/
>> on the mailing list (wrapped in ifdef CONFIG_X86_64)
>>
> 
> I prefer this approach. and no need for the ifdef, this is x86
> specific code, and the memory attributes table is already ignored
> entirely on 32-bit x86 iirc

ah yes, I ignored the file name when reviewing it and just focused on the function :)

Will wait for Dave to send it.

Thanks,
Usama