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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:21:39 +0100 From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com> Cc: mingo@...e.hu, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, sds@...ho.nsa.gov, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: consider effective protection attributes in W+X check On 14/12/17 15:15, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 14.12.17 at 15:04, <jgross@...e.com> wrote: >> On 12/12/17 11:31, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> @@ -335,42 +346,45 @@ static inline bool kasan_page_table(stru >>> >>> #if PTRS_PER_PMD > 1 >>> >>> -static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr, unsigned long P) >>> +static void walk_pmd_level(struct seq_file *m, struct pg_state *st, pud_t addr, >>> + pgprotval_t eff_in, unsigned long P) >>> { >>> int i; >>> pmd_t *start, *pmd_start; >>> - pgprotval_t prot; >>> + pgprotval_t prot, eff; >>> >>> pmd_start = start = (pmd_t *)pud_page_vaddr(addr); >>> for (i = 0; i < PTRS_PER_PMD; i++) { >>> st->current_address = normalize_addr(P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT); >>> if (!pmd_none(*start)) { >>> + prot = pmd_flags(*start); >>> + eff = effective_prot(eff_in, prot); >>> if (pmd_large(*start) || !pmd_present(*start)) { >>> - prot = pmd_flags(*start); >>> - note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), 4); >>> + note_page(m, st, __pgprot(prot), eff, 4); >>> } else if (!kasan_page_table(m, st, pmd_start)) { >>> - walk_pte_level(m, st, *start, >>> + walk_pte_level(m, st, *start, eff, >>> P + i * PMD_LEVEL_MULT); >>> } >> >> You can drop the braces for both cases. Applies to similar >> constructs below, too. > > I did consider that, but decided against to allow the patch to show > more clearly what it is that is actually being changed. > >> With that fixed you can add my: >> >> Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> > > Thanks. I'd like to wait for the x86 maintainer's opinion, and hence > won't add your R-b unless you tell me that's fine either way, or > unless they too would prefer resulting code cleanliness over patch > readability. I'm fine with the braces kept, too. Juergen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists