linux-kernel - Re: Proof-of-concept: better(?) page-table manipulation API

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:   Mon, 7 May 2018 16:10:59 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Proof-of-concept: better(?) page-table manipulation API

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 12:23:46PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 02:31:25PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > Also, what does lvl == 0 mean?  Is it the top or the bottom?  I think a
> > > comment would be helpful.
> > 
> > It is bottom. But it should be up to architecture to decide.
> 
> That's not true because ...
> 
> > > > +static inline void ptp_walk(ptp_t *ptp, unsigned long addr)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       ptp->ptr = (unsigned long *)ptp_page_vaddr(ptp);
> > > > +       ptp->ptr += __pt_index(addr, --ptp->lvl);
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > Can you add a comment that says what this function does?
> > 
> > Okay, I will.
> > 
> > > Why does it not change the level?
> > 
> > It does. --ptp->lvl.
> 
> ... you've hardcoded that walking down decrements the level by 1.
> 
> I don't see that as a defect; it's just part of the API that needs
> documenting.

You assume that the function is a generic one. This may or may not be
true.

This is subject for refinement anyway.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov