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:   Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:03:26 +0000
From:   "Raslan, KarimAllah" <karahmed@...zon.de>
To:     "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rkrcmar@...hat.com" <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/13] KVM/X86: Introduce a new guest mapping interface

On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 18:14 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 25/01/19 19:28, Raslan, KarimAllah wrote:
> > 
> > So the simple way to do it is:
> > 
> > 1- Pass 'mem=' in the kernel command-line to limit the amount of memory managed 
> >    by the kernel.
> > 2- Map this physical memory you want to give to the guest with
> >       mmap("/dev/mem", physical_address_offset, ..)
> > 3- Use the user-space virtual address as the "userspace_addr" field 
> >    in KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION ioctl.
> > 
> > You will also need this patch (hopefully I will repost next week as well):
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9191755/
> 
> I took a look again at that patch and I guess I've changed my mind now
> that the kernel provides e820__mapped_any and e820__mapped_all.
> However, please do use e820__mapped_any instead of adding a new function
> e820_is_ram.

The problem with e820__mapped_* is that they are iterating over 'e820_table'
which is already truncated from the 'mem=' and 'memmap=' parameters:

"""
 * - 'e820_table': this is the main E820 table that is massaged by the
 *   low level x86 platform code, or modified by boot parameters, before
 *   passed on to higher level MM layers.
"""

.. so I really still can not use it for this purpose. The structure that I want
to look at is actually 'e820_table_firmware' which is:

"""
 * - 'e820_table_firmware': the original firmware version passed to us by the
 *   bootloader - not modified by the kernel. It is composed of two parts:
 *   the first 128 E820 memory entries in boot_params.e820_table and the
remaining
 *   (if any) entries of the SETUP_E820_EXT nodes. We use this to:
 *
 *       - inform the user about the firmware's notion of memory layout
 *         via /sys/firmware/memmap
 *
 *       - the hibernation code uses it to generate a kernel-independent MD5
 *         fingerprint of the physical memory layout of a system.
"""

The users of e820__mapped_any expect these semantics, so even changing the 
implementation of these functions to use 'e820_table_firmware' to handle this 
will not be an option!

One option here would be to add 'e820__mapped_raw_any' (or whatever 
other name) and make it identical to the current implementation of 
e820__mapped_any at. Would that be slightly more acceptable? :)

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paolo
> 
> > 
> > I will make sure to expand on this in the cover letter in v6.
> 



Amazon Development Center Germany GmbH
Krausenstr. 38
10117 Berlin
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Schlaeger, Ralf Herbrich
Ust-ID: DE 289 237 879
Eingetragen am Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB 149173 B

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ