linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kdump, vmcoreinfo: Export sme_me

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]

Message-ID: <a4bae45c-e52a-7fbb-6b74-5de12ea47368@redhat.com>
Date:   Sat, 27 Oct 2018 10:57:08 +0800
From:   lijiang <lijiang@...hat.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bhe@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        dyoung@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kdump, vmcoreinfo: Export sme_me_mask value to vmcoreinfo

在 2018年10月27日 06:25, Borislav Petkov 写道:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 06:24:40PM +0200, Petr Tesarik wrote:
>> But we need the MSR value from the panic kernel environment, not while
>> the production kernel is still running, right?
> 
> Actually, we need only the encryption bit number (and it should be 0
> otherwise to denote SME wasn't enabled).
> 

Thanks for your comment.
For this patch, it really needs only the encryption bit number. 

For the AMD machine with SME feature, the OS or HV sets bit 47 of a
physical address to 1 in the page table entry to indicate the page
should be encrypted.

Thanks.
Lianbo

> I guess something like
> 
> 	VMCOREINFO_NUMBER(sme_mask);
> 
> which gets written by the kexec-ed kernel.
> 
>> If so, then this reminds me that I have wanted for a long time to store
>> more of the hardware state in a vmcore NOTE after a kernel crash ...
>> control registers, MSRs and whatnot. Of course, this would be a
>> long-term project, but I wonder what other people think about it in
>> general.
> 
> I guess that sounds like a good idea - the more relevant hw info for
> debugging, the better. Determining the important MSRs to save would need
> a bit of a pondering over though. For example, some MSRs are per-core,
> some per-socket, etc...
>