linux-kernel - Re: [stable PATCH 1/2] arm64: Fix mismatched cache line size detection

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 13 Sep 2018 14:40:46 +0200
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
Cc:     stable@...r.kernel.org, will.deacon@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        catalin.marinas@....com
Subject: Re: [stable PATCH 1/2] arm64: Fix mismatched cache line size
 detection

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 02:19:51PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:54:06AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > On 12/09/18 20:38, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 10:10:09AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > > > commit 4c4a39dd5fe2d13e2d2fa5fceb8ef95d19fc389a upstream
> > > > 
> > > > If there is a mismatch in the I/D min line size, we must
> > > > always use the system wide safe value both in applications
> > > > and in the kernel, while performing cache operations. However,
> > > > we have been checking more bits than just the min line sizes,
> > > > which triggers false negatives. We may need to trap the user
> > > > accesses in such cases, but not necessarily patch the kernel.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch fixes the check to do the right thing as advertised.
> > > > A new capability will be added to check mismatches in other
> > > > fields and ensure we trap the CTR accesses.
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: be68a8aaf925 ("arm64: cpufeature: Fix CTR_EL0 field definitions")
> > > > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # v4.9
> > > 
> > > Why 4.9?  be68a8aaf925 only showed up in 4.16 and was backported only to
> > > 4.14-stable.  Not to 4.9-stable from what I can tell.
> > 
> > Now when you asked this, I realise that the Fixes tags were not sufficient.
> > 
> > Actually this series fixes a bit more than the commit: be68a8aaf925 ("arm64: cpufeature:
> > Fix CTR_EL0 field definitions"). I think these patches should have :
> > 
> > Fixes: commit 116c81f427ff6c5 ("arm64: Work around systems with mismatched cache line sizes")
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > Enable trapping on mismatched bits in CTR for IDC/DIC, which were
> > added to v8.3 onwards.
> > 
> > Essentially these patches makes sure that we trap accesses to
> > CTR_EL0 when some of the fields are mismatched across CPUs, so
> > that the CPUs get a consistent view of the cache properties
> > throughout the system. It also makes sure that we put out
> > correct information about why we trap accesses to the CTR_EL0
> > accesses from the userspace.
> > 
> > Hope this helps. The same applies for the next patch.
> 
> Yes, it does help.  But these patches do not apply to the 4.14.y series,
> which I also need to apply them to (you don't want to move from 4.9.y to
> 4.14.y and get a regression.)
> 
> So can you provide backports for both of these patches for 4.14.y?  Then
> I would be glad to queue these all up.

Oh nevermind, I found those patches in my queue, you already sent them!

sorry for the noise.

greg k-h