linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] x86: make DR*

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]

Message-ID: <CAFTL4hyCQ1DGg5JOmWgvZoC9kcrV6TmodCw=TCFcr+QXMwv9yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Apr 2013 01:31:03 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: make DR*_RESERVED unsigned long

2013/4/25 H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>:
> On 04/24/2013 03:48 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> You told in an earlier email that intel manual says upper 32 bits of
>> dr6 are reserved.
>> In this case don't we need to expand the mask in 64 bits like is done
>> for DR_CONTROL_RESERVED?
>>
>
> Arguably this would be a *good* use for ~ ...
>
> Instead of defining separate bitmasks for 32 and 64 bits have the
> reciprocal (non-reserved bits):
>
> #define DR6_RESERVED (~0x0000F00FUL)
>
> That does have the right value on both 32 and 64 bits.  The leading
> zeroes aren't even really needed.

Ah, looks better indeed.

>
> Now, DR6 is a bit special in that a bunch of the reserved bits are
> hardwired to 1, not 0; I don't know offhand if that is true for bits
> [63:32].

Hmm, good point, could it be a problem given that we clear the
reserved dr6 bits on do_trap() and write that 'cleaned up" value back
to "tsk->thread.debugreg6"? Probably not if those hardwired reserved
bits are set to "1" on dr6 physical write whether those bits are
cleared or not in their storage in thread struct before resuming the
task?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html