[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z74nKGVfkhmYppCo@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 21:25:12 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Roman Kisel <romank@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, bhe@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, kai.huang@...el.com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...hat.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, apais@...rosoft.com,
benhill@...rosoft.com, ssengar@...rosoft.com,
sunilmut@...rosoft.com, vdso@...bites.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/reboot: Don't corrupt memory on non-BIOS systems
* Roman Kisel <romank@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> native_machine_emergency_restart() writes unconditionally
> to the physical address of 0x472 to pass the warm reboot
> flags to BIOS. The BIOS reads this on booting to bypass memory
> test and do the warm boot. On the non-BIOS systems, other
> means have to be employed, and this write is a memory corruption.
>
> Fix that by moving the offending write into the case where
> the machine is rebooted via BIOS.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Kisel <romank@...ux.microsoft.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c
> index 615922838c51..6eec8653493f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c
> @@ -637,9 +637,8 @@ static void native_machine_emergency_restart(void)
>
> tboot_shutdown(TB_SHUTDOWN_REBOOT);
>
> - /* Tell the BIOS if we want cold or warm reboot */
> + /* Tell the firmware if we want cold or warm reboot */
> mode = reboot_mode == REBOOT_WARM ? 0x1234 : 0;
> - *((unsigned short *)__va(0x472)) = mode;
>
> /*
> * If an EFI capsule has been registered with the firmware then
> @@ -681,6 +680,7 @@ static void native_machine_emergency_restart(void)
> break;
>
> case BOOT_BIOS:
> + *((unsigned short *)__va(0x472)) = mode;
> machine_real_restart(MRR_BIOS);
If the value of 0x472 is only meaningful in the legacy 'BOOT_BIOS'
case, then at minimum the whole block should be moved to that case, not
just the setting.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists