linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 07/17] x86/mm: Preserve KeyID on pte_modify() and pgprot

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 19:06:13 +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 07/17] x86/mm: Preserve KeyID on pte_modify() and
 pgprot_modify()

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 03:31:57PM +0000, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 06/15/2018 08:27 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 01:43:03PM +0000, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 06/15/2018 05:57 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >>>>> +#define _PAGE_CHG_MASK	(PTE_PFN_MASK_MAX | _PAGE_PCD | _PAGE_PWT |		\
> >>>>>  			 _PAGE_SPECIAL | _PAGE_ACCESSED | _PAGE_DIRTY |	\
> >>>>>  			 _PAGE_SOFT_DIRTY)
> >>>>>  #define _HPAGE_CHG_MASK (_PAGE_CHG_MASK | _PAGE_PSE)
> >>>> This makes me a bit nervous.  We have some places (here) where we
> >>>> pretend that the KeyID is part of the paddr and then other places like
> >>>> pte_pfn() where it's not.
> >>> Other option is to include KeyID mask into _PAGE_CHG_MASK. But it means
> >>> _PAGE_CHG_MASK would need to reference *two* variables: physical_mask and
> >>> mktme_keyid_mask. I mentioned this in the commit message.
> >>
> >> Why can't it be one variable with a different name that's populated by
> >> OR'ing physical_mask and mktme_keyid_mask together?
> > 
> > My point is that we don't need variables at all here.
> > 
> > Architecture defines range of bits in PTE used for PFN. MKTME reduces the
> > number of bits for PFN. PTE_PFN_MASK_MAX represents the original
> > architectural range, before MKTME stole these bits.
> > 
> > PTE_PFN_MASK_MAX is constant -- on x86-64 bits 51:12 -- regardless of
> > MKTME support.
> 
> Then please just rename the make PTE_<SOMETHING>_MASK where <SOMETHING>
> includes both the concept of a physical address and a MKTME keyID.  Just
> don't call it a pfn if it is not used in physical addressing.

I have no idea what such concept should be called. I cannot come with
anything better than PTE_PFN_MASK_MAX. Do you?

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov