linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/17] prmem: test cases for memory protection

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:   Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:16:14 +0200
From:   Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     igor.stoppa@...wei.com, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/17] prmem: test cases for memory protection



On 25/10/2018 17:43, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> +static bool is_address_protected(void *p)
>> +{
>> +	struct page *page;
>> +	struct vmap_area *area;
>> +
>> +	if (unlikely(!is_vmalloc_addr(p)))
>> +		return false;
>> +	page = vmalloc_to_page(p);
>> +	if (unlikely(!page))
>> +		return false;
>> +	wmb(); /* Flush changes to the page table - is it needed? */
> 
> No.

ok

> The rest of this is just pretty verbose and seems to have been very
> heavily copied and pasted.  I guess that's OK for test code, though.

I was tempted to play with macros, as templates to generate tests on the 
fly, according to the type being passed.

But I was afraid it might generate an even stronger rejection than the 
rest of the patchset already has.

Would it be acceptable/preferable?

--
igor