Re: [PATCH] x86/intel/quark: Remove lock bit around kernel IMR

2016-01-22 Thread Andy Shevchenko
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 20:44 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue >> wrote: [] >> > The solution to this situation is to keep the kernel .text section >> > IMR lock >> > bit false. This means

Re: [PATCH] x86/intel/quark: Remove lock bit around kernel IMR

2016-01-22 Thread Bryan O'Donoghue
On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 20:44 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue > wrote: > > Currently when setting up an IMR around the kernel .text area we > > lock that > > IMR, preventing further modification. While superficially this > > appears to > > be the rig

Re: [PATCH] x86/intel/quark: Remove lock bit around kernel IMR

2016-01-21 Thread Andy Shevchenko
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > Currently when setting up an IMR around the kernel .text area we lock that > IMR, preventing further modification. While superficially this appears to > be the right thing to do, in fact this doesn't account for a legitimate > change in th

[PATCH] x86/intel/quark: Remove lock bit around kernel IMR

2016-01-21 Thread Bryan O'Donoghue
Currently when setting up an IMR around the kernel .text area we lock that IMR, preventing further modification. While superficially this appears to be the right thing to do, in fact this doesn't account for a legitimate change in the memory map such as when running through kexec. In such a scenari