linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/mm/KASLR: Fix the wrong calculation of kalsr region initial size

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJcbSZGgyirW5E5cvz=oi0BhtcqfjJEw5xThQrm=irnqesFrNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Sep 2018 10:57:42 -0700
From:   Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
To:     kirill@...temov.name
Cc:     Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/mm/KASLR: Fix the wrong calculation of kalsr
 region initial size

Thanks Baoquan!

Reviewed-by: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 4:49 AM Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:17:53AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > In memory KASLR, __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT is taken to calculate the
> > initial size of the direct mapping region. This is right in the
> > old code where __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT was equal to MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS,
> > 46bit, and only 4-level mode was supported.
> >
> > Later, in commit:
> > b83ce5ee91471d ("x86/mm/64: Make __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT always 52"),
> > __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT was changed to be 52 always, no matter it's
> > 5-level or 4-level. This is wrong for 4-level paging. Then when
> > adapt phyiscal memory region size based on available memory, it
> > will overflow if the amount of system RAM and the padding is bigger
> > than 64TB.
> >
> > In fact, here MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS should be used instead. Fix it by
> > by replacing __PHYSICAL_MASK_SHIFT with MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
>
> Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
>
> --
>  Kirill A. Shutemov



-- 
Thomas