From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] s390/ipl: fix virtual vs physical address confusion
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 12:13:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f7df1bfc9a2ef4900dccb01ab81aa1fa9aaa6eb9.camel@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230816132942.2540411-1-agordeev@linux.ibm.com>
On Wed, 2023-08-16 at 15:29 +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> The value of ipl_cert_list_addr boot variable contains
> a physical address, which is used directly. That works
> because virtual and physical address spaces are currently
> the same, but otherwise it is wrong.
>
> While at it, fix also a comment for the platform keyring.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c | 4 ++--
> arch/s390/kernel/setup.c | 2 +-
> security/integrity/platform_certs/load_ipl_s390.c | 4 ++--
> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c b/arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c
> index 2df94d32140c..8d207b82d9fe 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c
> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static int kexec_file_add_ipl_report(struct kimage *image,
> data->memsz = ALIGN(data->memsz, PAGE_SIZE);
> buf.mem = data->memsz;
>
> - ptr = (void *)ipl_cert_list_addr;
> + ptr = __va(ipl_cert_list_addr);
> end = ptr + ipl_cert_list_size;
> ncerts = 0;
> while (ptr < end) {
> @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ static int kexec_file_add_ipl_report(struct kimage *image,
>
> addr = data->memsz + data->report->size;
> addr += ncerts * sizeof(struct ipl_rb_certificate_entry);
> - ptr = (void *)ipl_cert_list_addr;
> + ptr = __va(ipl_cert_list_addr);
> while (ptr < end) {
> len = *(unsigned int *)ptr;
> ptr += sizeof(len);
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c b/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c
> index 393dd8385506..c744104e4a9c 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -875,7 +875,7 @@ static void __init log_component_list(void)
> pr_info("Linux is running with Secure-IPL enabled\n");
> else
> pr_info("Linux is running with Secure-IPL disabled\n");
> - ptr = (void *) early_ipl_comp_list_addr;
> + ptr = __va(early_ipl_comp_list_addr);
> end = (void *) ptr + early_ipl_comp_list_size;
> pr_info("The IPL report contains the following components:\n");
> while (ptr < end) {
> diff --git a/security/integrity/platform_certs/load_ipl_s390.c b/security/integrity/platform_certs/load_ipl_s390.c
> index e769dcb7ea94..c7c381a9ddaa 100644
> --- a/security/integrity/platform_certs/load_ipl_s390.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/platform_certs/load_ipl_s390.c
> @@ -22,8 +22,8 @@ static int __init load_ipl_certs(void)
>
> if (!ipl_cert_list_addr)
> return 0;
> - /* Copy the certificates to the system keyring */
> - ptr = (void *) ipl_cert_list_addr;
> + /* Copy the certificates to the platform keyring */
> + ptr = __va(ipl_cert_list_addr);
> end = ptr + ipl_cert_list_size;
> while ((void *) ptr < end) {
> len = *(unsigned int *) ptr;
ipl_cert_list_addr is defined as an unsigned long. At this point, the
changes are simple cleanup of removing "(void *)" and replacing it with
__va().
From arch/s390/include/asm/page.h:
#define __pa(x) ((unsigned long)(x))
#define __va(x) ((void *)(unsigned long)(x))
So, Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
I'm trying to understand if there is a difference between the other
archs and s390; and whether a similar change is needed for the other
archs. Loading certificates on the other archs call kmalloc to
allocate memory for the certs. Is the memory being allocated on x390
using kmalloc?
--
thanks,
Mimi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-16 16:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-16 13:29 [PATCH v2] s390/ipl: fix virtual vs physical address confusion Alexander Gordeev
2023-08-16 15:44 ` Heiko Carstens
2023-08-16 17:34 ` Mimi Zohar
2023-08-16 19:32 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2023-08-16 16:13 ` Mimi Zohar [this message]
2023-08-16 17:07 ` Alexander Gordeev
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=f7df1bfc9a2ef4900dccb01ab81aa1fa9aaa6eb9.camel@linux.ibm.com \
--to=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jarkko@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.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: link
Be 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