From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: efi: ignore EFI_MEMORY_XP attribute if RP and/or WP are set Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 14:57:23 -0700 Message-ID: <20170922215723.GE457@codeaurora.org> References: <20170914193153.18520-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20170915185355.GC3349@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , Matt Fleming List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 09/15, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 15 September 2017 at 11:53, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 09/14, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> The UEFI memory map is a bit vague about how to interpret the > >> EFI_MEMORY_XP attribute when it is combined with EFI_MEMORY_RP and/or > >> EFI_MEMORY_WP, which have retroactively been redefined as cacheability > >> attributes rather than permission attributes. > >> > >> So let's ignore EFI_MEMORY_XP if _RP and/or _WP are also set. In this > >> case, it is likely that they are being used to describe the capability > >> of the region (i.e., whether it has the controls to reconfigure it as > >> non-executable) rather than the nature of the contents of the region > >> (i.e., whether it contains data that we will never attempt to execute) > >> > >> Cc: Stephen Boyd > > > > Reported-by: Stephen Boyd > > > > I will test early next week and provide a tested-by. Thanks. > > > > Great, thanks. > Tested-by: Stephen Boyd -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project