On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 10:27:54AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 2:35 AM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 11:51:48AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > x86_64 all{mod,yes}config with clang are going to ship broken in 5.11.
> >
> > Dunno, it is
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 2:35 AM Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 11:51:48AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > x86_64 all{mod,yes}config with clang are going to ship broken in 5.11.
>
> Dunno, it is still broken here even with those build assertions removed. And
> it
> ain't
On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 11:51:48AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> x86_64 all{mod,yes}config with clang are going to ship broken in 5.11.
Dunno, it is still broken here even with those build assertions removed. And it
ain't even an all{mod,yes}config - just my machine's config with
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 11:13:18PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 04:43:58PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > This should check EFI_VA_END instead of EFI_VA_START, and maybe throw in
> > a BUG_ON if EFI_VA_END >= EFI_VA_START.
>
> No need:
>
> if (efi_va <
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 04:43:58PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> This should check EFI_VA_END instead of EFI_VA_START, and maybe throw in
> a BUG_ON if EFI_VA_END >= EFI_VA_START.
No need:
if (efi_va < EFI_VA_END) {
pr_warn(FW_WARN "VA address range overflow!\n");
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 11:51:55AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 09:29:18PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > I think we have agreement on the approach but it is unclear who is
> > going to write the patch.
>
> How's that below?
>
> And frankly, I'd even vote for
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 11:51:55AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 09:29:18PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > I think we have agreement on the approach but it is unclear who is
> > going to write the patch.
>
> How's that below?
>
> And frankly, I'd even vote for
On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 at 11:52, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 09:29:18PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > I think we have agreement on the approach but it is unclear who is
> > going to write the patch.
>
> How's that below?
>
> And frankly, I'd even vote for removing those
On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 09:29:18PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> I think we have agreement on the approach but it is unclear who is
> going to write the patch.
How's that below?
And frankly, I'd even vote for removing those assertions altogether. If
somehow the EFI pgd lands somewhere else, the
On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 19:51, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:33:43AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 22:42, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:24:09PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > > > > As a matter of fact, it
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:33:43AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 22:42, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:24:09PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > > > As a matter of fact, it seems like the four assertions could be
> > > > > > combined
> > > > >
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:33:43AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> The churn doesn't seem to be worth it, tbh.
>
> So could we get rid of the complexity here, and only build_bug() on
> the start address of the EFI region being outside the topmost p4d?
> That should make the PGD test redundant as
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 04:42:20PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> AFAICT, MODULES_END is only relevant as being something that happens to
> be in the top 512GiB, and -1ul would be clearer.
I think you are right. But -1UL is not very self-descriptive. :/
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:07:51PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:34:15PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann
> >
> > When 5-level page tables are enabled, clang triggers a BUILD_BUG_ON():
> >
> > x86_64-linux-ld: arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.o: in
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 22:42, Arvind Sankar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:24:09PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > > As a matter of fact, it seems like the four assertions could be
> > > > > combined
> > > > > into:
> > > > > BUILD_BUG_ON((EFI_VA_END & P4D_MASK) !=
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:24:09PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > > As a matter of fact, it seems like the four assertions could be combined
> > > > into:
> > > > BUILD_BUG_ON((EFI_VA_END & P4D_MASK) != (MODULES_END & P4D_MASK));
> > > > BUILD_BUG_ON((EFI_VA_START & P4D_MASK) !=
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 05:34:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 21:27, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:07:51PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:34:15PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > From: Arnd Bergmann
> > > >
> >
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 21:27, Arvind Sankar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:07:51PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:34:15PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > From: Arnd Bergmann
> > >
> > > When 5-level page tables are enabled, clang triggers a BUILD_BUG_ON():
>
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 03:12:25PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 08:54:18PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 8:18 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:11:25PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > > That's how build-time
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:07:51PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:34:15PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann
> >
> > When 5-level page tables are enabled, clang triggers a BUILD_BUG_ON():
> >
> > x86_64-linux-ld: arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.o: in
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 08:54:18PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 8:18 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:11:25PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > > That's how build-time assertions work: they are _supposed_ to be
> > > optimized away completely
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 8:18 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:11:25PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > That's how build-time assertions work: they are _supposed_ to be
> > optimized away completely when the assertion is true. If they're
> > _not_ optimized away, the build
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:11:25PM -0500, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> That's how build-time assertions work: they are _supposed_ to be
> optimized away completely when the assertion is true. If they're
> _not_ optimized away, the build will fail.
Yah, that I know, thanks.
If gcc really inlines
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 08:07:29PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 11:32:03AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > I triggered it with CONFIG_UBSAN=y + CONFIG_UBSAN_UNSIGNED_OVERFLOW=y
> > (it can be exposed with an allyesconfig/allmodconfig on mainline
> > currently).
>
>
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:34:15PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> When 5-level page tables are enabled, clang triggers a BUILD_BUG_ON():
>
> x86_64-linux-ld: arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.o: in function
> `efi_sync_low_kernel_mappings':
> efi_64.c:(.text+0x22c): undefined
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 11:32:03AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> I triggered it with CONFIG_UBSAN=y + CONFIG_UBSAN_UNSIGNED_OVERFLOW=y
> (it can be exposed with an allyesconfig/allmodconfig on mainline
> currently).
Yah, I can trigger with that, thanks.
But I'll be damned, check this out:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 07:23:00PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:34:15PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann
> >
> > When 5-level page tables are enabled, clang triggers a BUILD_BUG_ON():
>
> I have CONFIG_X86_5LEVEL=y, CONFIG_EFI=y and am using
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:34:15PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> When 5-level page tables are enabled, clang triggers a BUILD_BUG_ON():
I have CONFIG_X86_5LEVEL=y, CONFIG_EFI=y and am using Debian clang
version 10.0.1-8+b1 but my .config builds just fine.
How do you
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 at 23:34, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> When 5-level page tables are enabled, clang triggers a BUILD_BUG_ON():
>
> x86_64-linux-ld: arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.o: in function
> `efi_sync_low_kernel_mappings':
> efi_64.c:(.text+0x22c): undefined reference
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:34:15PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann
>
> When 5-level page tables are enabled, clang triggers a BUILD_BUG_ON():
>
> x86_64-linux-ld: arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.o: in function
> `efi_sync_low_kernel_mappings':
> efi_64.c:(.text+0x22c): undefined
From: Arnd Bergmann
When 5-level page tables are enabled, clang triggers a BUILD_BUG_ON():
x86_64-linux-ld: arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.o: in function
`efi_sync_low_kernel_mappings':
efi_64.c:(.text+0x22c): undefined reference to `__compiletime_assert_354'
Use the same method as in commit
31 matches
Mail list logo
