linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] mmu: mark spte present if the x bit is set

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: <c8664148-754a-4d88-4f3a-5aba16fe4908@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 28 Jun 2016 22:17:54 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>
Cc:	kvm@...r.kernel.org, guangrong.xiao@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mmu: mark spte present if the x bit is set



On 28/06/2016 19:33, Bandan Das wrote:
>>> >>  static int is_shadow_present_pte(u64 pte)
>>> >>  {
>>> >> -	return pte & PT_PRESENT_MASK && !is_mmio_spte(pte);
>>> >> +	return pte & (PT_PRESENT_MASK | shadow_x_mask) &&
>>> >> +		!is_mmio_spte(pte);
>> >
>> > This should really be pte & 7 when using EPT.  But this is okay as an
>> > alternative to a new shadow_present_mask.
> I could revive shadow_xonly_valid probably... Anyway, for now I will
> add a TODO comment here.

It's okay to it like this, because the only invalid PTEs reaching this
point are those that is_mmio_spte filters away.  Hence you'll never get
-W- PTEs here, and pte & 7 is really the same as how you wrote it.  It's
pretty clever, and doesn't need a TODO at all. :)

Paolo