From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com" <izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com>,
"fanc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com" <fanc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>,
Junichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
dyoung@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] x86/efi: clean up dead code around efi_reserve_boot_services()
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 09:13:31 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170726011331.GA24304@x1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170726001230.GA32325@hori1.linux.bs1.fc.nec.co.jp>
On 07/26/17 at 12:12am, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 02:20:44PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jul, at 02:51:36PM, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > > EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_{CODE|DATA} regions never overlap the kernel now,
> > > so we can clean up the check in efi_reserve_boot_services().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/platform/efi/quirks.c | 23 +----------------------
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 22 deletions(-)
> >
> > Is this true for kernels not using KASLR?
>
> Thank you for pointing out this. It's not true depending on memmap layout.
> If a firmware does not define the memory around the kernel address
> (0x1000000 or CONFIG_PHYSICAL_START) as EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_*, no overlap
> happens. That's true in my testing server, but I don't think that we can
> expect it generally.
>
> So I think of adding some assertion in the patch 1/2 to detect this overlap
> in extract_kernel() even for no KASLR case.
EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_* memory are collected as e820 region of
E820_TYPE_RAM, how can we guarantee kernel won't use them after jumping
into the running kernel whether KASLR enabled or not? We can only wish
that EFI firmware engineer don't put EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_* far from
0x1000000 where normal kernel is loaded.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-26 1:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-06 8:31 [PATCH] x86/boot/KASLR: exclude EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_{CODE|DATA} from KASLR's choice Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-06 9:13 ` Chao Fan
2017-07-06 9:22 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-06 9:36 ` Chao Fan
2017-07-06 9:18 ` Baoquan He
2017-07-06 9:36 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-06 10:04 ` Chao Fan
2017-07-06 10:20 ` Chao Fan
2017-07-06 14:57 ` Matt Fleming
2017-07-07 3:07 ` Baoquan He
2017-07-07 6:11 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-07 10:58 ` Matt Fleming
2017-07-10 5:47 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-10 5:51 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] " Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-24 13:17 ` Matt Fleming
2017-07-25 6:17 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-10 5:51 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] x86/efi: clean up dead code around efi_reserve_boot_services() Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-24 13:20 ` Matt Fleming
2017-07-26 0:12 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-26 1:13 ` Baoquan He [this message]
2017-07-26 1:34 ` Baoquan He
2017-07-28 6:48 ` [PATCH] x86/boot: check overlap between kernel and EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_* Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-29 10:04 ` kbuild test robot
2017-07-29 13:01 ` kbuild test robot
2017-07-29 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH] x86/boot: efi_kernel_boot_services_overlap can be static kbuild test robot
2017-08-23 8:24 ` [PATCH] x86/boot: check overlap between kernel and EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_* Baoquan He
2017-07-07 10:56 ` [PATCH] x86/boot/KASLR: exclude EFI_BOOT_SERVICES_{CODE|DATA} from KASLR's choice Matt Fleming
2017-07-09 10:44 ` Baoquan He
2017-07-09 14:27 ` Baoquan He
2017-07-07 7:22 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] " Naoya Horiguchi
2017-07-07 7:22 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/efi: clean up dead code around efi_reserve_boot_services() Naoya Horiguchi
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=20170726011331.GA24304@x1 \
--to=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=fanc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thgarnie@google.com \
--cc=x86@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