On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Kees Cook keesc...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote:
Okay, I've proven this to myself now. :) I think it would be valuable
to call out that brk and bss are included in the _end calculation. For
others:
...
If UEFI Runtime Services are available, they are preferred over direct
PSCI calls or other methods to reset the system.
For the reset case, we need to hook into machine_restart(), as the
arm_pm_restart function pointer may be overwritten by modules.
Tested-by: Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 11:41:57AM +, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
# cat /any/path/capsule.bin /sys/devices/platform/efi_capsule/capsule_load
This is straight-forward and clean.
or doing:
# echo /any/path/capsule.bin
/sys/devices/platform/efi_capsule/capsule_load
This is strange and
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 01:32:53PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote:
It is totally unacceptable that you don't do proper analysis of the
patches you submit, and that you don't bother writing proper, readable
changelogs.
Sorry,
On 5 March 2015 at 15:22, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Ard,
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 12:51:11PM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
If UEFI Runtime Services are available, the ResetSystem() service should
be preferred over direct PSCI calls or other methods to reset the system.
The
-Original Message-
From: Andy Lutomirski [mailto:l...@amacapital.net]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 7:09 AM
On Mar 5, 2015 1:19 AM, Kweh, Hock Leong hock.leong.k...@intel.com
wrote:
This really is not a big deal. User should cope with it.
No, it's a big deal, and the user
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 12:00:34AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
commit e6023367d779 (x86, kaslr: Prevent .bss from overlaping initrd)
introduced one run_size for kaslr.
We do not need to have home grown run_size.
We should use real runtime size (include copy/decompress) aka init_size
Why?
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 12:00:35AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
bp found data from boot stage can not be used kernel stage.
Actually those data area is overlapped with VO kernel bss stage, and
clear_bss()
VO kernel bss stage?
I'm sure you can think of a better explanation. Right now I'm
-Original Message-
From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@alien8.de]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 4:14 PM
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 03:08:42PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
No. Only root should be able to load capsules, but even root may not
be able to write to /lib.
So basically
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 12:00:34AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
commit e6023367d779 (x86, kaslr: Prevent .bss from overlaping initrd)
introduced one run_size for kaslr.
We do not need to have home grown run_size.
We should
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 12:00:34AM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
commit e6023367d779 (x86, kaslr: Prevent .bss from overlaping initrd)
introduced one run_size
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de wrote:
Please use checkpatch before submitting patches:
WARNING: please, no spaces at the start of a line
#71: FILE: arch/x86/kernel/setup.c:433:
+unsigned char *data;$
WARNING: please, no spaces at the start of a line
#72:
On Mar 6, 2015 4:20 AM, Kweh, Hock Leong hock.leong.k...@intel.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Andy Lutomirski [mailto:l...@amacapital.net]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 7:09 AM
On Mar 5, 2015 1:19 AM, Kweh, Hock Leong hock.leong.k...@intel.com
wrote:
This really is
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Kees Cook keesc...@chromium.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote:
I don't see how bss and brk are related to these sizes. Can you
explain how bss, brk, and initrd factor into these sizes? Those were
what run_size was
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de wrote:
However, the setup_data linked list and thus the element which contains
kaslr_enabled is chained together using physical addresses. At the
time when we
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de wrote:
However, the setup_data linked list and thus the element which contains
kaslr_enabled is chained together using physical addresses. At the
time when we access it in the kernel proper, we're already running
with paging
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:49:09PM +, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
Hi All,
After some internal discussion and re-design prototyping testing on
this efi capsule interface kernel module, I would like to start a discussion
here on the new idea and wish to get input for the implementation and
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:49:09PM +, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
Hi All,
After some internal discussion and re-design prototyping testing on
this efi capsule interface kernel module, I would like to start a discussion
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 01:49:20PM -0800, Roy Franz wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:49:09PM +, Kweh, Hock Leong wrote:
Hi All,
After some internal discussion and re-design prototyping testing on
this efi capsule
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 03:08:42PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
No. Only root should be able to load capsules, but even root may not
be able to write to /lib.
So basically what we want to do is:
# cat /any/path/to/efi/capsule/accessible/to/root/efi_capsule.img
/sys/firmware/efi/update
Now
20 matches
Mail list logo
