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:	Tue, 29 Mar 2016 22:09:23 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	gleb@...nel.org, mtosatti@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] KVM: MMU: fix permission_fault()



On 29/03/2016 19:43, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Based on the SDM:
> PK flag (bit 5).
> This flag is 1 if (1) IA32_EFER.LMA = CR4.PKE = 1; (2) the access
> causing the page-fault exception was a data access; (3) the linear
> address was a user-mode address with protection key i; and (5) the PKRU
> register (see Section 4.6.2) is such that either (a) ADi = 1; or (b) the
> following all hold: (i) WDi = 1; (ii) the access is a write access; and
> (iii) either CR0.WP = 1 or the access causing the page-fault exception
> was a user-mode access.
> 
> So I think PKEY check and ordinary check are independent, i.e, PFEC.PKEY
> may be set even if the on permission on the page table is not adequate.

x86/access.flat is currently using the "other" definition, i.e., PFEC.PK
is only set if W=1 or CR0.WP=0 && PFEC.U=0 or PFEC.W=0.  Can you use it
(with ept=1 of course) to check what the processor is doing?

Paolo

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ