Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S937194AbdIZVPE (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:15:04 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f196.google.com ([209.85.128.196]:35450 "EHLO mail-wr0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S937117AbdIZVPB (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Sep 2017 17:15:01 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCkE2azZf7UPEn+vjc5NMez/CFMx2tHvwvEVcsuRdm2wQMM/RWyghQabGoG364wvZ7qZC3Iew== Message-ID: <1506460498.5507.59.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [RFC 00/11] KVM, EFI, arm64: EFI Runtime Services Sandboxing From: Florent Revest To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Matt Fleming , Paolo Bonzini , Radim =?UTF-8?Q?Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99?= , Christoffer Dall , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Marc Zyngier , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , KVM devel mailing list , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , Leif Lindholm Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 23:14:58 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1503649901-5834-1-git-send-email-florent.revest@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1208 Lines: 27 On Fri, 2017-09-22 at 14:44 -0700, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > From the EFI side, there are some minor concerns on my part regarding > the calling convention, and the fact that we can no longer invoke > runtime services from a kernel running at EL1, but those all seem > fixable. I will respond to the patches in question in greater detail > at a later time. Indeed, this RFC currently breaks EFI Runtime Services at EL1. This would need to be fixed in a new patchset. The patch 10/11 also underlines that the current argument passing method does not respect alignment. The way arguments are currently pushed and pulled makes it quite hard to fix the issue. Any suggestion would be welcome. > In the mean time, Christoffer has raised a number for valid concerns, > and those need to be addressed first before it makes sense to talk > about EFI specifics. I hope you will find more time to invest in > this: I would really love to have this feature upstream. Unfortunately, I'm no longer working at ARM and my other projects keep me very busy. I would also love to invest more time in this patchset to have it upstream but I'm really unsure when I will be able to find the time for this. Best,     Florent