linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86-32: Separate 1:1 pagetables from swapper_pg

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: <4CFFA28E.5030805@goop.org>
Date:	Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:21:50 -0800
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
CC:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	"Roedel, Joerg" <Joerg.Roedel@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"stable@...nel.org" <stable@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86-32: Separate 1:1 pagetables from swapper_pg_dir

On 12/08/2010 03:58 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 04:34:15AM -0500, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 04:15 +0000, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 07:06:31PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>>> On 12/07/2010 01:05 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 04:16:14PM +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>>>>> commit fd89a137924e0710078c3ae855e7cec1c43cb845 upstream
>>>>> applied, thanks.
>>>> This will need as well 5b5c1af104ab5adec1be9dcb4c787492d83d8d83 to
>>>> prevent Xen regressions.
>>> So should I add that to a specific release? The next .36 stable or something else?
>> 5b5c1af104ab5 fixed an issue exposed by b40827fa7268. I'm not sure if
>> fd89a13792 also exposes a similar issue, but I think it does not:
>>
>> It looks to me like fd89a13792 only reads from swapper_pg_dir and writes
>> to trampoline_pg_dir which is unpinned (and unused) under Xen and hence
>> there is no problem and 5b5c1af104ab5 is not needed.
> I tend to agree with Ian's assessment here.
>
> Let me put it this way: have you guys seen any Xen-related regressions
> with fd89a13792? I mean, this patch went in after 2.6.36-rc1 and if
> it were breaking Xen, we (or maybe you :)) would've caught it by now,
> right?

No,  I got confused.  Sorry for spreading the confusion around...

    J
--
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/