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  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:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:35:22 +0000
From:   Kristina Martsenko <kristina.martsenko@....com>
To:     Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:     Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
        Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
        Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrishnan@....com>,
        kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/5] arm64/kvm: add a userspace option to enable
 pointer authentication

On 28/01/2019 06:58, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
> This feature will allow the KVM guest to allow the handling of
> pointer authentication instructions or to treat them as undefined
> if not set. It uses the existing vcpu API KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT to
> supply this parameter instead of creating a new API.
> 
> A new register is not created to pass this parameter via
> SET/GET_ONE_REG interface as just a flag (KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH)
> supplied is enough to enable this feature.

[...]

> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index b200c14..b6950df 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -346,6 +346,10 @@ static inline int kvm_arm_have_ssbd(void)
>  static inline void kvm_vcpu_load_sysregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
>  static inline void kvm_vcpu_put_sysregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
>  static inline void kvm_arm_vcpu_ptrauth_reset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
> +static inline bool kvm_arm_vcpu_ptrauth_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +	return false;
> +}

It seems like this is only ever called from arm64 code, so do we need an
arch/arm/ definition?

> +/**
> + * kvm_arm_vcpu_ptrauth_allowed - checks if ptrauth feature is present in vcpu
> + *
> + * @vcpu: The VCPU pointer
> + *
> + * This function will be used to enable/disable ptrauth in guest as configured
> + * by the KVM userspace API.
> + */
> +bool kvm_arm_vcpu_ptrauth_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +	return test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH, vcpu->arch.features);
> +}

I'm not sure, but should there also be something like

if (test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH, vcpu->arch.features) &&
    !kvm_supports_ptrauth())
	return -EINVAL;

in kvm_reset_vcpu?

Thanks,
Kristina

Powered by blists - more mailing lists