On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 01:38:04PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 11:38:03AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 01:55:50PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm64-stub.c
> > > b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm64-stub.c
> > > index 1550d244e996..24022f956e01 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm64-stub.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/arm64-stub.c
> > > @@ -111,6 +111,8 @@ efi_status_t handle_kernel_image(efi_system_table_t
> > > *sys_table_arg,
> > > status = efi_random_alloc(sys_table_arg, *reserve_size,
> > > MIN_KIMG_ALIGN, reserve_addr,
> > > (u32)phys_seed);
> > > + if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
> > > + pr_efi_err(sys_table_arg, "KASLR allocate_pages()
> > > failed\n");
> > >
> > > *image_addr = *reserve_addr + offset;
> > > } else {
> > > @@ -135,6 +137,8 @@ efi_status_t handle_kernel_image(efi_system_table_t
> > > *sys_table_arg,
> > > EFI_LOADER_DATA,
> > > *reserve_size / EFI_PAGE_SIZE,
> > > (efi_physical_addr_t *)reserve_addr);
> > > + if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
> > > + pr_efi_err(sys_table_arg, "regular allocate_pages()
> > > failed\n");
> > > }
> >
> > Not sure I see the need to distinsuish the 'KASLR' case from the 'regular'
> > case -- only one should run, right? That also didn't seem to be part of
> > the use-case in the commit, unless I'm missing something.
>
> I just did that to help with differentiating the cases. Maybe something
> was special about KASLR picking the wrong location that triggered the
> failure, etc.
>
> > Maybe combine the prints as per the diff below?
>
> That could work. If you're against the KASLR vs regular thing, I can
> respin the patch?
Happy to Ack it with that change, although I suppose it's ultimately up
to Ard :)
Will
