Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751826AbdG1KSV (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2017 06:18:21 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48730 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751779AbdG1KST (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2017 06:18:19 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 7D94EC2642F5 Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=bhe@redhat.com Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 18:18:14 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Matt Fleming , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com, fanc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com, thgarnie@google.com, n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 RESEND] x86/boot/KASLR: Restrict kernel to be randomized in mirror regions Message-ID: <20170728101814.GP24304@x1> References: <1500542189-15779-1-git-send-email-bhe@redhat.com> <20170721103757.hc74czr3mfunrv6c@gmail.com> <20170721131956.GK2344@x1> <20170724133410.GC11076@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20170728095525.y4tuv6aavzfs4ekb@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170728095525.y4tuv6aavzfs4ekb@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]); Fri, 28 Jul 2017 10:18:19 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1103 Lines: 28 On 07/28/17 at 11:55am, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Matt Fleming wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Jul, at 09:19:56PM, Baoquan He wrote: > > > > > > There are places where the efi map is getting and used like this. E.g > > > in efi_high_alloc() of drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/efi-stub-helper.c. > > > EFI developers worry the size of efi_memory_desc_t could not be the same > > > as e->efi_memdesc_size? > > > > > > Hi Matt, > > > > > > Could you help have a look at this? > > > > You're exactly right. The code guards against the size of the > > efi_memory_desc_t struct changing. The UEFI spec says to traverse the > > memory map this way. > > This is not obvious and looks pretty ugly as well, and open coded in several > places. > > At minimum we should have an efi_memdesc_ptr(efi, i) wrapper inline (or so) that > gives us the entry pointer, plus a comment that points out that ->memdesc_size > might not be equal to sizeof(efi_memory_memdesc_t). Seems for_each_efi_memory_desc_in_map() can be used to hide the calculation and type cast each time for better memmap loop.