LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
	"linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] efi: Ignore unrealistically large option roms
Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 15:57:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu9KNEWCY7eXJ1edpKdve5Em831f_rW2z1CSCaE5kWNCMw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <96034903ca984624a5972f7bb5aea975@AcuMS.aculab.com>

On 1 May 2018 at 15:52, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
> From: Ard Biesheuvel
>> Sent: 28 April 2018 07:41
>> On 27 April 2018 at 23:35, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > setup_efi_pci() tries to save a copy of each PCI option ROM as this may
>> > be necessary for the device driver for the PCI device to have access too.
>> >
>> > On some systems the efi_pci_io_protocol_64's romimage and romsize fields
>> > contain invalid data, which looks a bit like pointers pointing back into
>> > other EFI code or data. Interpreting these pointers as romsize leads to
>> > a very large value and if we then try to alloc this amount of memory to
>> > save a copy the alloc call fails.
>> >
>> > This leads to a "Failed to alloc mem for rom" error being printed on the
>> > EFI console for each PCI device.
>> >
>> > This commit avoids the printing of these errors, by checking romsize
>> > before doing the alloc and if it is larger then 256M silently ignore the
>> > ROM fields instead of trying to alloc mem and fail.
>> >
>>
>> The UEFI spec limits the size of option ROMs to 16 MiB, so I'd prefer
>> we use that as the upper bound instead.
>
> Copying even 16MB of rom data into physical memory on the 'off chance' that
> the kernel might need it seems a waste of memory.
>

16 MB is the smallest number we can use that still guarantees that we
will not misidentify a valid option ROM as bogus. But in reality,
option ROMs are rarely that large.

> I can't help feeling that some kind of caching would be more appropriate.
>

Could you elaborate?

      reply	other threads:[~2018-05-01 13:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-27 21:35 Hans de Goede
2018-04-28  6:40 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2018-04-28 20:11   ` Hans de Goede
2018-05-01 13:52   ` David Laight
2018-05-01 13:57     ` Ard Biesheuvel [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAKv+Gu9KNEWCY7eXJ1edpKdve5Em831f_rW2z1CSCaE5kWNCMw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
    --cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2] efi: Ignore unrealistically large option roms' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).