linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3] sparc64: Add support for Application Data Integrity (ADI)

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]

Date:   Fri, 6 Jan 2017 10:08:27 -0700
From:   Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Rob Gardner <rob.gardner@...cle.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        corbet@....net, arnd@...db.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        hpa@...or.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, nitin.m.gupta@...cle.com,
        chris.hyser@...cle.com, tushar.n.dave@...cle.com,
        sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com, mike.kravetz@...cle.com,
        adam.buchbinder@...il.com, minchan@...nel.org, hughd@...gle.com,
        kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        allen.pais@...cle.com, aryabinin@...tuozzo.com,
        atish.patra@...cle.com, joe@...ches.com, pmladek@...e.com,
        jslaby@...e.cz, cmetcalf@...lanox.com,
        paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, jmarchan@...hat.com,
        lstoakes@...il.com, 0x7f454c46@...il.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        vdavydov.dev@...il.com, hannes@...xchg.org, namit@...are.com,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Khalid Aziz <khalid@...ehiking.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3] sparc64: Add support for Application Data
 Integrity (ADI)

On 01/06/2017 09:55 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 01/06/2017 08:22 AM, Khalid Aziz wrote:
>> On 01/06/2017 08:36 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On 01/06/2017 07:32 AM, Khalid Aziz wrote:
>>>> I agree with you on simplicity first. Subpage granularity is complex,
>>>> but the architecture allows for subpage granularity. Maybe the right
>>>> approach is to support this at page granularity first for swappable
>>>> pages and then expand to subpage granularity in a subsequent patch?
>>>> Pages locked in memory can already use subpage granularity with my
>>>> patch.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "locked in memory"?  mlock()'d memory can still be
>>> migrated around and still requires "swap" ptes, for instance.
>>
>> You are right. Page migration can invalidate subpage granularity even
>> for locked pages. Is it possible to use cpusets to keep a task and its
>> memory locked on a single node?
>
> It's going to be hard to impossible to guarantee.  mlock() doesn't
> guarantee that things won't change physical addresses.  You'd have to
> change that guarantee or chase all the things in the kernel that might
> change physical addresses (compaction, ksm, etc...).
>
> Actually, that reminds me...  How does your code interface with ksm?  Or
> is there no interaction needed since you're always working on virtual
> addresses?
>

Yes, version tags are interpreted at virtual address level.

--
Khalid