linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86, mm, pat: Set WT to PA4 slot of PAT MSR

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 4 Sep 2014 17:51:55 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
Cc:	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, akpm@...uxfoundation.org,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
	Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@...onical.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86, mm, pat: Set WT to PA4 slot of PAT MSR

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 16:34 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
>> <hmh@....eng.br> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> >> On 09/04/2014 01:11 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> >> > I am worried of uncharted territory, here.  I'd actually advocate for not
>> >> > enabling the upper four PAT entries on IA-32 at all, unless Windows 9X / XP
>> >> > is using them as well.  Is this a real concern, or am I being overly
>> >> > cautious?
>> >>
>> >> It is extremely unlikely that we'd have PAT issues in 32-bit mode and
>> >> not in 64-bit mode on the same CPU.
>> >
>> > Sure, but is it really a good idea to enable this on the *old* non-64-bit
>> > capable processors (note: I don't mean x86-64 processors operating in 32-bit
>> > mode) ?
>> >
>> >> As far as I know, the current blacklist rule is very conservative due to
>> >> lack of testing more than anything else.
>> >
>> > I was told that much in 2009 when I asked why cpuid 0x6d8 was blacklisted
>> > from using PAT :-)
>>
>> At the very least, anyone who plugs an NV-DIMM into a 32-bit machine
>> is nuts, and not just because I'd be somewhat amazed if it even
>> physically fits into the slot. :)
>
> According to the spec, the upper four entries bug was fixed in Pentium 4
> model 0x1.  So, the remaining Intel 32-bit processors that may enable
> the upper four entries are Pentium 4 model 0x1-4.  Should we disable it
> for all Pentium 4 models?

Assuming that this is Pentium 4 erratum N46, then there may be another
option: use slot 7 instead of slot 4 for WT.  Then, even if somehow
the blacklist screws up, the worst that happens is that a WT page gets
interpreted as UC.  I suppose this could cause aliasing issues, but
can't cause problems for people who don't use the high entries in the
first place.

--Andy

>
> Thanks,
> -Toshi
>



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/