linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v6 20/62] powerpc: store and restore the pkey state across context switches

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: <20170729233113.GH5664@ram.oc3035372033.ibm.com>
Date:   Sat, 29 Jul 2017 16:31:13 -0700
From:   Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
To:     Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        arnd@...db.de, corbet@....net, mhocko@...nel.org,
        dave.hansen@...el.com, mingo@...hat.com, paulus@...ba.org,
        aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v6 20/62] powerpc: store and restore the pkey state across
 context switches

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 02:32:59PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> 
> Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com> writes:
> 
> > Store and restore the AMR, IAMR and UMOR register state of the task
> > before scheduling out and after scheduling in, respectively.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
> 
> s/UMOR/UAMOR/
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
> > index 2ad725e..9429361 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
> > @@ -1096,6 +1096,11 @@ static inline void save_sprs(struct thread_struct *t)
> >  		t->tar = mfspr(SPRN_TAR);
> >  	}
> >  #endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
> > +	t->amr = mfspr(SPRN_AMR);
> > +	t->iamr = mfspr(SPRN_IAMR);
> > +	t->uamor = mfspr(SPRN_UAMOR);
> > +#endif
> >  }
> >
> >  static inline void restore_sprs(struct thread_struct *old_thread,
> > @@ -1131,6 +1136,14 @@ static inline void restore_sprs(struct thread_struct *old_thread,
> >  			mtspr(SPRN_TAR, new_thread->tar);
> >  	}
> >  #endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
> > +	if (old_thread->amr != new_thread->amr)
> > +		mtspr(SPRN_AMR, new_thread->amr);
> > +	if (old_thread->iamr != new_thread->iamr)
> > +		mtspr(SPRN_IAMR, new_thread->iamr);
> > +	if (old_thread->uamor != new_thread->uamor)
> > +		mtspr(SPRN_UAMOR, new_thread->uamor);
> > +#endif
> >  }
> 
> Shouldn't the saving and restoring of the SPRs be guarded by a check for
> whether memory protection keys are enabled? What happens when trying to
> access these registers on a CPU which doesn't have them?

Good point. need to guard it.  However; i think, these registers have been
available since power6.

RP