linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] fix xen hvm guest with kaslr enabled

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: <99bef8e4-34f3-54dc-5790-7fa2db4e3787@suse.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:00:12 +0200
From:   Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com
Cc:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] fix xen hvm guest with kaslr enabled

On 08/08/17 16:00, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 08/08/2017 02:46 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 28/07/17 12:23, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> This patch series fixes a regression introduced in 4.13-rc1: A Xen
>>> HVM guest with KASLR enabled wouldn't boot any longer due to the usage
>>> of __va() before kernel_randomize_memory() was called.
>>>
>>> Changes in V2:
>>> - patch 1: test for x86_hyper being not NULL
>>>
>>> Juergen Gross (3):
>>>   x86: provide an init_mem_mapping hypervisor hook
>>>   xen: split up xen_hvm_init_shared_info()
>>>   xen: fix hvm guest with kaslr enabled
>>>
>>>  arch/x86/include/asm/hypervisor.h | 10 +++++++
>>>  arch/x86/mm/init.c                |  3 ++
>>>  arch/x86/xen/enlighten_hvm.c      | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>>>  3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>>
>> Could I have some feedback, please?
>>
>> I'd like to get this regression fixed in 4.13.
>>
>> In case nobody objects this week I'll just add the patches to the Xen
>> tree for rc5.
> 
> 
> As I said before I think .init_mem_mapping() could live in
> x86_platform_ops() but this works too, so
> 
> Reviewed-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
> 
> But this still wants x86 maintainers' ACK.

x86 maintainers, could you please comment on at least patch 1?


Juergen