linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] x86 fixes

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: <20090112205259.GA5303@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:52:59 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	Torsten Kaiser <just.for.lkml@...glemail.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] x86 fixes


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> > +		if (strict_prot ||
> > +		    (want_flags == _PAGE_CACHE_UC_MINUS &&
> > +		     flags == _PAGE_CACHE_WB) ||
> > +		    (want_flags == _PAGE_CACHE_WC &&
> > +		     flags == _PAGE_CACHE_WB)) {
> 
> Please don't write code like this.
> 
> Do it as an inline function that returns true/false and has comments on 
> what the hell is going on.

I have asked Venki to do a minimal 'combo' patch that isolates just the 
functional changes. (it is otherwise identical to Venki's PAT changes.) 

The reason why we wanted to re-test the functional changes was that 
Torsten's crash looks very weird: double Call Trace line, a crash in the 
scsi/ata code, showing the after-effects of some sort of memory corruption 
there.

Connection to the x86-fixes patchset did not seem impossible [a theory 
would be: cache aliasing problems causing memory corruption], but 
nevertheless it was all quite weird. So we wanted an isolated repeat test 
for just the functional changes.

The 7 patches lined up for you (but quarantined from x86/urgent for now, 
until the crash Torsten got is investigated) introduce the above condition 
cleanly, as:

+static inline int is_new_memtype_allowed(unsigned long flags,
+                                               unsigned long new_flags)
+{
+       /*
+        * Certain new memtypes are not allowed with certain
+        * requested memtype:
+        * - request is uncached, return cannot be write-back
+        * - request is write-combine, return cannot be write-back
+        */
+       if ((flags == _PAGE_CACHE_UC_MINUS &&
+            new_flags == _PAGE_CACHE_WB) ||
+           (flags == _PAGE_CACHE_WC &&
+            new_flags == _PAGE_CACHE_WB)) {
+               return 0;
+       }
+
+       return 1;
+}

	Ingo
--
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/