linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 08/17] x86/mm: Implement vma_is_encrypted() and vma

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]

Date:   Fri, 15 Jun 2018 16:14:17 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 08/17] x86/mm: Implement vma_is_encrypted() and
 vma_keyid()

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 06:18:05PM +0000, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 06/12/2018 07:39 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > +bool vma_is_encrypted(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > +{
> > +	return pgprot_val(vma->vm_page_prot) & mktme_keyid_mask;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int vma_keyid(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > +{
> > +	pgprotval_t prot;
> > +
> > +	if (!vma_is_anonymous(vma))
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	prot = pgprot_val(vma->vm_page_prot);
> > +	return (prot & mktme_keyid_mask) >> mktme_keyid_shift;
> > +}
> 
> Why do we have a vma_is_anonymous() in one of these but not the other?

It shouldn't be there. It's from earlier approach to the function.
I'll fix this.

And I'll drop vma_is_encrypted(). It is not very useful.

> While this reuse of ->vm_page_prot is cute, is there any downside?  It's
> the first place I know of that we can't derive ->vm_page_prot from
> ->vm_flags on non-VM_IO/PFNMAP VMAs.  Is that a problem?

I don't think so.

It need to be covered in pte_modify() and such, but it's about it.

That's relatively isolated change and we can move KeyID into a standalone
field, if this approach proves to be problematic.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov