linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] x86: Fix stray A/D bit setting into non-present PTEs

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: <CAMzpN2iLBKF7vK3TuTPwYn2nZOw2q_Pn=q+g6pNuVs0k6Xd5LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jun 2016 23:06:55 -0400
From:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] x86: Fix stray A/D bit setting into non-present PTEs

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net> wrote:
>>
>> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
>>
>> The Intel(R) Xeon Phi(TM) Processor x200 Family (codename: Knights
>> Landing) has an erratum where a processor thread setting the Accessed
>> or Dirty bits may not do so atomically against its checks for the
>> Present bit.  This may cause a thread (which is about to page fault)
>> to set A and/or D, even though the Present bit had already been
>> atomically cleared.
>
> So I don't think your approach is wrong, but I suspect this is
> overkill, and what we should instead just do is to not use the A/D
> bits at all in the swap representation.
>
> The swap-entry representation was a bit tight on 32-bit page table
> entries, but in 64-bit ones, I think we have tons of bits, don't we?
> So we could decide just to not use those two bits on x86.
>
> It's not like anybody will ever care about 32-bit page tables on
> Knights Landing anyway.

Could this affect a 32-bit guest VM?

--
Brian Gerst