From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org> To: Matt Fleming <matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org> Cc: linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, "Alexander Potapenko" <glider-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet-T1hC0tSOHrs@public.gmane.org>, linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kasan-dev-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, "Andrey Ryabinin" <aryabinin-5HdwGun5lf+gSpxsJD1C4w@public.gmane.org>, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org>, "Borislav Petkov" <bp-Gina5bIWoIWzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>, "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org>, "Dmitry Vyukov" <dvyukov-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 10/18] x86/efi: Access EFI related tables in the clear Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:17:21 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <57615561.4090502@amd.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20160613135110.GC2658-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org> On 06/13/2016 08:51 AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jun, at 01:33:30PM, Tom Lendacky wrote: >> >> I was trying to play it safe here, but as you say, the firmware should >> be using our page tables so we can get rid of this call. The problem >> will actually be if we transition to a 32-bit efi. The encryption bit >> will be lost in cr3 and so the pgd table will have to be un-encrypted. >> The entries in the pgd can have the encryption bit set so I would only >> need to worry about the pgd itself. I'll have to update the >> efi_alloc_page_tables routine. > > Interesting, I hadn't expected 32-bit EFI to be an option for > platforms with the SME technology. I'd assumed we could just ignore > that. We may be able to do that. > > Are you saying that the encryption bit isn't supported in 32-bit > compatibility mode? We don't do a "full" switch to 32-bit protected > mode when in mixed mode, just load a 32-bit code segment descriptor. > The page tables are not modified at all. The encryption bit is supported in 32-bit compatibility mode and since we're not doing the "full" switch the cr3 register will remain as a 64-bit register so we can leave the pgd table encrypted. > >> The encryption bit in the cr3 register will indicate if the pgd table >> is encrypted or not. Based on my comment above about the pgd having >> to be un-encrypted in case we have to transition to 32-bit efi, this >> can be removed. > > I'm not (yet) sure that the pgd needs to be unencrypted for 32-bit EFI > when running a 64-bit kernel. In the AMD Programmer's Manual, Section > 7.10.3 Operating Modes seems to indicate that running encrypted should > work fine. > >> I'll look into this a bit more. From looking at it I don't want the >> _PAGE_ENC bit set for the memmap unless it gets re-allocated (which >> I missed in these patches). Let me see what I can do with this. > > I don't understand your comment about re-allocating the memmap. > > The kernel builds its own EFI memory map at runtime, initially based > on the memory map provided by the firmware. We always allocate a new > memory map. Sorry, I mis-interpreted the efi_map_regions function/loop and see that the memmap is always allocated by the kernel. > > In efi_setup_page_tables() we're building our own page tables, which > should be encrypted, and mapping EFI regions described by the memmap > into those page tables. > > So unless we're mapping an MMIO region (in which case _PAGE_PCD is set > in @flags for kernel_map_pages_in_pgd()) I would expect _PAGE_ENC to > be set. > >> I'll look further into this, but I saw that this area of virtual memory >> was mapped un-encrypted and after freeing the boot services the >> mappings were somehow reused as un-encrypted for DMA which assumes >> (unless using swiotlb) encrypted. This resulted in DMA data being >> transferred in as encrypted and then accessed un-encrypted. > > That the mappings were re-used isn't a surprise. > > efi_free_boot_services() lifts the reservation that was put in place > during efi_reserve_boot_services() and releases the pages to the > kernel's memory allocators. > > What is surprising is that they were marked unencrypted at all. > There's nothing special about these pages as far as the __va() region > is concerned. Right, let me keep looking into this to see if I can pin down what was (or is) happening. Thanks, Tom >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> To: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>, "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>, "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>, "Joerg Roedel" <joro@8bytes.org>, "Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>, "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, "Andrey Ryabinin" <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>, "Alexander Potapenko" <glider@google.com>, "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>, "Dmitry Vyukov" <dvyukov@google.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 10/18] x86/efi: Access EFI related tables in the clear Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:17:21 -0500 [thread overview] Message-ID: <57615561.4090502@amd.com> (raw) Message-ID: <20160615131721.k2Y5r7qIEUcGt67cBtVFVl8pkPalAgcVOwJhKMK_k2s@z> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20160613135110.GC2658@codeblueprint.co.uk> On 06/13/2016 08:51 AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jun, at 01:33:30PM, Tom Lendacky wrote: >> >> I was trying to play it safe here, but as you say, the firmware should >> be using our page tables so we can get rid of this call. The problem >> will actually be if we transition to a 32-bit efi. The encryption bit >> will be lost in cr3 and so the pgd table will have to be un-encrypted. >> The entries in the pgd can have the encryption bit set so I would only >> need to worry about the pgd itself. I'll have to update the >> efi_alloc_page_tables routine. > > Interesting, I hadn't expected 32-bit EFI to be an option for > platforms with the SME technology. I'd assumed we could just ignore > that. We may be able to do that. > > Are you saying that the encryption bit isn't supported in 32-bit > compatibility mode? We don't do a "full" switch to 32-bit protected > mode when in mixed mode, just load a 32-bit code segment descriptor. > The page tables are not modified at all. The encryption bit is supported in 32-bit compatibility mode and since we're not doing the "full" switch the cr3 register will remain as a 64-bit register so we can leave the pgd table encrypted. > >> The encryption bit in the cr3 register will indicate if the pgd table >> is encrypted or not. Based on my comment above about the pgd having >> to be un-encrypted in case we have to transition to 32-bit efi, this >> can be removed. > > I'm not (yet) sure that the pgd needs to be unencrypted for 32-bit EFI > when running a 64-bit kernel. In the AMD Programmer's Manual, Section > 7.10.3 Operating Modes seems to indicate that running encrypted should > work fine. > >> I'll look into this a bit more. From looking at it I don't want the >> _PAGE_ENC bit set for the memmap unless it gets re-allocated (which >> I missed in these patches). Let me see what I can do with this. > > I don't understand your comment about re-allocating the memmap. > > The kernel builds its own EFI memory map at runtime, initially based > on the memory map provided by the firmware. We always allocate a new > memory map. Sorry, I mis-interpreted the efi_map_regions function/loop and see that the memmap is always allocated by the kernel. > > In efi_setup_page_tables() we're building our own page tables, which > should be encrypted, and mapping EFI regions described by the memmap > into those page tables. > > So unless we're mapping an MMIO region (in which case _PAGE_PCD is set > in @flags for kernel_map_pages_in_pgd()) I would expect _PAGE_ENC to > be set. > >> I'll look further into this, but I saw that this area of virtual memory >> was mapped un-encrypted and after freeing the boot services the >> mappings were somehow reused as un-encrypted for DMA which assumes >> (unless using swiotlb) encrypted. This resulted in DMA data being >> transferred in as encrypted and then accessed un-encrypted. > > That the mappings were re-used isn't a surprise. > > efi_free_boot_services() lifts the reservation that was put in place > during efi_reserve_boot_services() and releases the pages to the > kernel's memory allocators. > > What is surprising is that they were marked unencrypted at all. > There's nothing special about these pages as far as the __va() region > is concerned. Right, let me keep looking into this to see if I can pin down what was (or is) happening. Thanks, Tom >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-15 13:17 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 149+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-04-26 22:55 [RFC PATCH v1 00/18] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (AMD) Tom Lendacky 2016-03-22 13:00 ` Pavel Machek 2016-03-22 13:00 ` Pavel Machek [not found] ` <20160322130058.GA16528-5NIqAleC692hcjWhqY66xCZi+YwRKgec@public.gmane.org> 2016-04-27 14:05 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-04-27 14:05 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-04-27 14:30 ` Pavel Machek 2016-04-27 14:30 ` Pavel Machek 2016-04-27 14:39 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-04-27 14:39 ` Borislav Petkov [not found] ` <20160427143951.GH21011-fF5Pk5pvG8Y@public.gmane.org> 2016-04-27 14:58 ` Pavel Machek 2016-04-27 14:58 ` Pavel Machek 2016-04-27 15:47 ` Pavel Machek 2016-04-27 15:47 ` Pavel Machek 2016-04-27 14:21 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-27 14:21 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:55 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:56 ` [RFC PATCH v1 01/18] x86: Set the write-protect cache mode for AMD processors Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:56 ` Tom Lendacky [not found] ` <20160426225604.13567.55443.stgit-qCXWGYdRb2BnqfbPTmsdiZQ+2ll4COg0XqFh9Ls21Oc@public.gmane.org> 2016-04-27 14:33 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-04-27 14:33 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-04-27 14:44 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-27 14:44 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-27 14:47 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-04-27 14:47 ` Andy Lutomirski [not found] ` <CALCETrV+JzPZjrrqkhWSVfvKQt62Aq8NSW=ZvfdiAi8XKoLi8A-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> 2016-04-27 15:05 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-27 15:05 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-27 15:12 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-04-27 15:12 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-04-27 15:31 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-04-27 15:31 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-04-27 15:34 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-04-27 15:34 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-04-26 22:56 ` [RFC PATCH v1 02/18] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) build enablement Tom Lendacky 2016-03-22 13:01 ` Pavel Machek 2016-03-22 13:01 ` Pavel Machek 2016-04-27 15:17 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-27 15:17 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-27 15:30 ` Pavel Machek 2016-04-27 15:30 ` Pavel Machek 2016-04-27 15:41 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-04-27 15:41 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-04-27 16:41 ` Pavel Machek 2016-04-27 17:07 ` Robin Murphy 2016-04-27 17:07 ` Robin Murphy 2016-04-27 17:12 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-04-26 22:56 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:56 ` [RFC PATCH v1 03/18] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (SME) support Tom Lendacky 2016-03-22 13:03 ` Pavel Machek 2016-03-22 13:03 ` Pavel Machek 2016-04-27 16:20 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-27 16:20 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:56 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:56 ` [RFC PATCH v1 04/18] x86: Add the Secure Memory Encryption cpu feature Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:56 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:56 ` [RFC PATCH v1 05/18] x86: Handle reduction in physical address size with SME Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:56 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:56 ` [RFC PATCH v1 06/18] x86: Provide general kernel support for memory encryption Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:56 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:57 ` [RFC PATCH v1 07/18] x86: Extend the early_memmap support with additional attrs Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:57 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:57 ` [RFC PATCH v1 08/18] x86: Add support for early encryption/decryption of memory Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:57 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:57 ` [RFC PATCH v1 09/18] x86: Insure that memory areas are encrypted when possible Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:57 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:57 ` [RFC PATCH v1 10/18] x86/efi: Access EFI related tables in the clear Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:57 ` Tom Lendacky [not found] ` <20160426225740.13567.85438.stgit-qCXWGYdRb2BnqfbPTmsdiZQ+2ll4COg0XqFh9Ls21Oc@public.gmane.org> 2016-05-10 13:43 ` Matt Fleming 2016-05-10 13:43 ` Matt Fleming [not found] ` <20160510134358.GR2839-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org> 2016-05-10 13:57 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-05-10 13:57 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-05-12 18:20 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-05-12 18:20 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-05-24 14:54 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-05-24 14:54 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-05-25 16:09 ` Daniel Kiper 2016-05-25 16:09 ` Daniel Kiper 2016-05-25 19:30 ` Matt Fleming 2016-05-25 19:30 ` Matt Fleming 2016-05-26 13:45 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-05-26 13:45 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-06-08 10:07 ` Matt Fleming 2016-06-08 10:07 ` Matt Fleming 2016-06-09 16:16 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-06-09 16:16 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-06-13 12:03 ` Matt Fleming 2016-06-13 12:03 ` Matt Fleming 2016-06-13 12:34 ` Matt Fleming 2016-06-13 12:34 ` Matt Fleming 2016-06-13 15:16 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-06-13 15:16 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-06-08 11:18 ` Matt Fleming 2016-06-08 11:18 ` Matt Fleming 2016-06-09 18:33 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-06-09 18:33 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-06-13 13:51 ` Matt Fleming 2016-06-13 13:51 ` Matt Fleming [not found] ` <20160613135110.GC2658-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org> 2016-06-15 13:17 ` Tom Lendacky [this message] 2016-06-15 13:17 ` Tom Lendacky [not found] ` <57615561.4090502-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org> 2016-06-16 14:38 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-06-16 14:38 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-06-17 15:51 ` Matt Fleming 2016-06-17 15:51 ` Matt Fleming 2016-04-26 22:57 ` [RFC PATCH v1 11/18] x86: Decrypt trampoline area if memory encryption is active Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:57 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v1 12/18] x86: Access device tree in the clear Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:58 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v1 13/18] x86: DMA support for memory encryption Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:58 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-29 7:17 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk 2016-04-29 15:12 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-29 15:12 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-29 16:27 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [not found] ` <20160429162757.GA1191-he5eyhs8q0BAdwtm4QZOy9BPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> 2016-04-29 23:49 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-29 23:49 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v1 14/18] iommu/amd: AMD IOMMU " Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:58 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v1 15/18] x86: Enable memory encryption on the APs Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:58 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-05-01 22:10 ` Huang, Kai [not found] ` <f37dd7de-23ad-f70f-c32d-a32f116215ce-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org> 2016-05-03 15:59 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-05-03 15:59 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v1 16/18] x86: Do not specify encrypted memory for VGA mapping Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:58 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v1 17/18] x86/kvm: Enable Secure Memory Encryption of nested page tables Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:58 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:59 ` [RFC PATCH v1 18/18] x86: Add support to turn on Secure Memory Encryption Tom Lendacky [not found] ` <20160426225904.13567.538.stgit-qCXWGYdRb2BnqfbPTmsdiZQ+2ll4COg0XqFh9Ls21Oc@public.gmane.org> 2016-03-22 13:13 ` Pavel Machek 2016-03-22 13:13 ` Pavel Machek 2016-04-26 22:59 ` Tom Lendacky [not found] ` <20160426225553.13567.19459.stgit-qCXWGYdRb2BnqfbPTmsdiZQ+2ll4COg0XqFh9Ls21Oc@public.gmane.org> 2016-04-27 14:39 ` [RFC PATCH v1 00/18] x86: Secure Memory Encryption (AMD) Andy Lutomirski 2016-04-27 14:39 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-04-27 20:10 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-04-27 20:10 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-05-02 18:31 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-05-02 18:31 ` Andy Lutomirski 2016-05-09 15:13 ` Paolo Bonzini 2016-05-09 15:13 ` Paolo Bonzini 2016-05-09 21:08 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-05-09 21:08 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-05-10 11:23 ` Paolo Bonzini 2016-05-10 11:23 ` Paolo Bonzini 2016-05-10 12:04 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-05-10 12:04 ` Borislav Petkov 2016-04-30 6:13 ` Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory) 2016-04-30 6:13 ` Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory) [not found] ` <94D0CD8314A33A4D9D801C0FE68B402963918FDA-wwDBVnaDRpYSZAcGdq5asR6epYMZPwEe5NbjCUgZEJk@public.gmane.org> 2016-05-03 15:55 ` Tom Lendacky 2016-05-03 15:55 ` Tom Lendacky -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2016-04-26 22:45 Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:47 ` [RFC PATCH v1 10/18] x86/efi: Access EFI related tables in the clear Tom Lendacky 2016-04-26 22:47 ` Tom Lendacky
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=57615561.4090502@amd.com \ --to=thomas.lendacky-5c7gfcevmho@public.gmane.org \ --cc=arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org \ --cc=aryabinin-5HdwGun5lf+gSpxsJD1C4w@public.gmane.org \ --cc=bp-Gina5bIWoIWzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org \ --cc=corbet-T1hC0tSOHrs@public.gmane.org \ --cc=dvyukov-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \ --cc=glider-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \ --cc=hpa-YMNOUZJC4hwAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \ --cc=iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org \ --cc=kasan-dev-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org \ --cc=kvm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \ --cc=linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \ --cc=linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \ --cc=linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \ --cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \ --cc=linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org \ --cc=matt-mF/unelCI9GS6iBeEJttW/XRex20P6io@public.gmane.org \ --cc=mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \ --cc=pbonzini-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \ --cc=rkrcmar-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \ --cc=tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org \ --cc=x86-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).