linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] xen: limit grant v2 interface to the v1 functionality

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: <9e8e497a-49d1-6299-8101-dd1123f81fee@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:22:23 -0400
From:   Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] xen: limit grant v2 interface to the v1 functionality

On 09/12/2017 02:18 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 12/09/17 18:21, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 09/12/2017 12:09 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 12/09/17 18:05, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>> On 09/12/2017 11:50 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>> On 12/09/17 17:44, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/08/2017 10:48 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>> As there is currently no user for sub-page grants or transient grants
>>>>>>> remove that functionality. This at once makes it possible to switch
>>>>>>> from grant v2 to grant v1 without restrictions, as there is no loss of
>>>>>>> functionality other than the limited frame number width related to
>>>>>>> the switch.
>>>>>> But isn't that ABI violation? v2 is expected to support this (XSAs
>>>>>> notwithstanding)
>>>>> No, I don't think so.
>>>>>
>>>>> The hypervisor still supports it, but the domU (or dom0) isn't required
>>>>> to make use of all the features IMHO. Or are you aware of any backend
>>>>> querying the grant version of a frontend and acting in another way if v2
>>>>> is detected?
>>>> I am not aware of any but that doesn't mean that they don't (or won't)
>>>> exist.
>>> But isn't the frontend the one which is defining what is granted in
>>> which way? How should there be an ABI breakage when the frontend just
>>> isn't using sub-page or transitive grants?
>> People may provide both front and backend drivers and frontends, knowing
>> that v2 is available, could decide to use those features.
> No, without the functions to use them it will be impossible.

I don't follow this. Which functions? The ones this patch is removing?

-boris

>  So it won't
> hit them on a random system by not working, but they would not be able
> to load such a driver (same as today without V2 support).
>
> In case they really want it they can send patches for support of subpage
> or transient grants. Like they would have to do for complete V2 support
> today.
>
>
> Juergen
>