linux-kernel - Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v5 04/10] arm64: Add __flush_tlb

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: <20170814165047.GB23428@leverpostej>
Date:   Mon, 14 Aug 2017 17:50:47 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        Marco Benatto <marco.antonio.780@...il.com>,
        Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@...onical.com>,
        Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@....com>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] [PATCH v5 04/10] arm64: Add __flush_tlb_one()

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:35:36AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:26:03PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 02:07:49PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > +static inline void __flush_tlb_one(unsigned long addr)
> > > +{
> > > +	dsb(ishst);
> > > +	__tlbi(vaae1is, addr >> 12);
> > > +	dsb(ish);
> > > +	isb();
> > > +}
> > 
> > Is this going to be called by generic code?
> 
> Yes, it's called in mm/xpfo.c:xpfo_kunmap.
> 
> > It would be nice if we could drop 'kernel' into the name, to make it clear this
> > is intended to affect the kernel mappings, which have different maintenance
> > requirements to user mappings.

> It's named __flush_tlb_one after the x86 (and a few other arches)
> function of the same name. I can change it to flush_tlb_kernel_page,
> but then we'll need some x86-specific code to map the name as well.
> 
> Maybe since it's called from generic code that's warranted though?
> I'll change the implementation for now, let me know what you want to
> do about the name.

I think it would be preferable to do so, to align with 
flush_tlb_kernel_range(), which is an existing generic interface.

That said, is there any reason not to use flush_tlb_kernel_range()
directly?

Thanks,
Mark.