From: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: "Nicolai Stange" <nicstange@gmail.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Matt Fleming" <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"Mika Penttilä" <mika.penttila@nextfour.com>,
"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
"Dave Young" <dyoung@redhat.com>,
"linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] efi: efi_mem_reserve(): don't reserve through memblock after mm_init()
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2017 14:02:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87wpe8mjdk.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu8RHsMKmEHBqNv=q4SB-spCtuydbCshs2ut1+Kk8vraOQ@mail.gmail.com> (Ard Biesheuvel's message of "Fri, 6 Jan 2017 08:35:52 +0000")
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> writes:
> On 5 January 2017 at 12:51, Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Before invoking the arch specific handler, efi_mem_reserve() reserves
>> the given memory region through memblock.
>>
>> efi_mem_reserve() can get called after mm_init() though -- through
>> efi_bgrt_init(), for example. After mm_init(), memblock is dead and should
>> not be used anymore.
>>
>> Let efi_mem_reserve() check whether memblock is dead and not do the
>> reservation if so. Emit a warning from the generic efi_arch mem_reserve()
>> in this case: if the architecture doesn't provide any other means of
>> registering the region as reserved, the operation would be a nop.
>>
>> Fixes: 4bc9f92e64c8 ("x86/efi-bgrt: Use efi_mem_reserve() to avoid copying image data")
>> Signed-off-by: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> Applicable to next-20170105.
>> No changes to v2.
>> Boot-tested on x86_64.
>>
>> drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c | 7 +++++--
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
>> index 92914801e388..158a8df2f4af 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c
>> @@ -403,7 +403,10 @@ u64 __init efi_mem_desc_end(efi_memory_desc_t *md)
>> return end;
>> }
>>
>> -void __init __weak efi_arch_mem_reserve(phys_addr_t addr, u64 size) {}
>> +void __init __weak efi_arch_mem_reserve(phys_addr_t addr, u64 size)
>> +{
>> + WARN(slab_is_available(), "efi_mem_reserve() has no effect");
>> +}
>>
>> /**
>> * efi_mem_reserve - Reserve an EFI memory region
>> @@ -419,7 +422,7 @@ void __init __weak efi_arch_mem_reserve(phys_addr_t addr, u64 size) {}
>> */
>> void __init efi_mem_reserve(phys_addr_t addr, u64 size)
>> {
>> - if (!memblock_is_region_reserved(addr, size))
>> + if (!slab_is_available() && !memblock_is_region_reserved(addr, size))
>> memblock_reserve(addr, size);
>>
More context:
/*
* Some architectures (x86) reserve all boot services ranges
* until efi_free_boot_services() because of buggy firmware
* implementations. This means the above memblock_reserve() is
* superfluous on x86 and instead what it needs to do is
* ensure the @start, @size is not freed.
*/
efi_arch_mem_reserve(addr, size);
}
> I share Dave's concern: on x86, this will silently ignore the
> reservation if slab_is_available() returns true,
AFAICS, x86 has got an efi_arch_mem_reserve() which doesn't ignore the
reservation at any stage.
The default implementation of efi_arch_mem_reserve() used on ARM is
empty though ...
> so we should at least warn here.
... and this patch adds a WARN() to the empty stub.
> I don't think this patch solves any known issues, so I'd
> rather defer this for now, and pick up the discussion when Matt is
> back,
I'm fine with either way and yes, no splat has been observed in the
wild.
Just to make it explicit: the issue addressed here is a potential
use-after-free (both, read and write) on memblock.reserved.regions in
case of CONFIG_ARCH_DISCARD_MEMBLOCK=y. It would certainly make sense to
clarify the commit description in the next iteration...
Thanks,
Nicolai
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-06 13:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-05 12:51 [PATCH v3 1/2] x86/efi: don't allocate memmap through memblock after mm_init() Nicolai Stange
2017-01-05 12:51 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] efi: efi_mem_reserve(): don't reserve " Nicolai Stange
2017-01-06 8:35 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-06 13:02 ` Nicolai Stange [this message]
2017-01-06 16:41 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-06 17:46 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-01-06 19:28 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2017-01-08 0:24 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-01-09 13:07 ` Matt Fleming
2017-01-09 13:00 ` Matt Fleming
2017-01-05 21:30 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] x86/efi: don't allocate memmap " Dan Williams
2017-01-09 6:43 ` [tip:efi/urgent] x86/efi: Don't " tip-bot for Nicolai Stange
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=87wpe8mjdk.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=nicstange@gmail.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=mika.penttila@nextfour.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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