On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 20:21, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2/25/20 12:12 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 19:10, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 2/25/20 11:58 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >>> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 18:54, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 2/25/20 11:45 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >>>>> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 18:41, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> When booting with SME active, EFI tables must be mapped unencrypted since > >>>>>> they were built by UEFI in unencrypted memory. Update the list of tables > >>>>>> to be checked during early_memremap() processing to account for new EFI > >>>>>> tables. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This fixes a bug where an EFI TPM log table has been created by UEFI, but > >>>>>> it lives in memory that has been marked as usable rather than reserved. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> Changes since v1: > >>>>>> - Re-spun against EFI tree > >>>>> > >>>>> Which one? Surely not the one in the link I included? > >>>> > >>>> I did a git clone of > >>>> > >>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/efi/efi.git > >>>> > >>>> and checked out branch next. Not sure what I missed... > >>>> > >>> > >>> Weird. Do you see commit 5d288dbd88606d8f215c7138b10649115d79cadd on > >>> that branch? It removes rng_seed from struct efi, hence my request to > >>> rebase your patch. > >> > >> I had just assumed you wanted a cleaner version and didn't realize that > >> rng_seed was removed from struct efi. My bad for not building. > >> > >>> > >>> IMO, best is to simply drop the 'static' from rng_seed, rename it to > >>> efi_rng_seed, and drop an extern declaration in linux/efi.h so it is > >>> accessible from your code. I'm reluctant to put it back in struct efi. > >> > >> Ok, I'll re-work the patch. > >> > > > > OK > > > > Btw if you want the TPM part of the fix to go to -stable, better to > > split them in two (and I'll put a cc:stable on the tpm one) > > I had thought about stable, but the fix gets tricky since the two tables > were added at different times (4.16 and 5.3) and the efi_tables array was > moved from drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c to arch/x86/platform/efi/efi.c in 5.4. > > I could do the two TPM tables each as their own patch and add an > appropriate Cc: stable # v4.16.x-, etc., if you don't think that's > overkill. The array move shouldn't be too hard to adjust for in stable. > Thoughts? > So v5.4/v5.5 seems straight-forward then, no? Once that one is in, we can do one specially for v4.19
