Bug 654665

Summary:	EFI/UEFI page table initialization is incorrect for x86_64 in physical mode.
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6	Reporter:	bob picco <bpicco>
Component:	kernel	Assignee:	bob picco <bpicco>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Mike Gahagan <mgahagan>
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	high
Version:	6.0	CC:	moshiro, mzywusko, peterm, qcai, tindoh
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:	ptam
Fixed In Version:	kernel-2.6.32-85.el6	Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2011-05-11 17:24:36 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description bob picco 2010-11-18 14:54:31 UTC

Description of problem:
EFI/UEFI page table initialization in commit 19774aa25f2127f47f38f280f4bd44d7e156771c uses EFI's memory descriptor type
like an attribute mask. The type field of the memory descriptor is an enumerated
type. This incorrect discrimination of type results in nearly all types of
EFI memory descriptors being accessible from EFI. This was not the intent
of the initialization routine efi_pagetable_init. Only EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_CODE
and EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES_DATA pte entries should be constructed.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
6.0

How reproducible:
Any x86_64 EFI/UEFI booted machine.

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 3 RHEL Program Management 2010-11-19 13:39:25 UTC

This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion
in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has 
requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential
inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed 
products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release.

Comment 4 Aristeu Rozanski 2010-12-13 15:15:32 UTC

Patch(es) available on kernel-2.6.32-89.el6

Comment 8 Takao Indoh 2011-01-20 20:58:25 UTC

Any plan for 6.0.z? Recently I noticed that kdump did not work on Fujitsu
server without this patch when the server has large memory(1TB memory). I
think this patch(and also bz668825) is necessary for 6.0.z.

Comment 9 bob picco 2011-01-21 11:12:03 UTC

(In reply to comment #8)
> Any plan for 6.0.z? Recently I noticed that kdump did not work on Fujitsu
> server without this patch when the server has large memory(1TB memory). I
> think this patch(and also bz668825) is necessary for 6.0.z.

bz# 664364 is what corrected Fujitsu according to testing in this bz. bz#  654665
isn't related. As for 6.0.z I would think Fujitsu can answer.

Comment 10 Takao Indoh 2011-01-21 14:52:47 UTC

Ok, I'll ask Fujitsu about it, thanks.

Comment 13 Takao Indoh 2011-04-12 18:51:24 UTC

> Any new updates or comments from Fujitsu on this one?

Yeah, Fujitsu requested fix for 6.0.z on CASE#00412086, and it seems that RH'll provide hotfix instead of errata.