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:   Mon, 15 Apr 2019 17:41:55 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <>
To:     lijiang <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 RESEND v10] x86/mm, resource: add a new I/O resource

On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 08:22:22PM +0800, lijiang wrote:
> They are different problems.

Aha, so we're getting closer. You should've lead with that!

> The first problem is that passes the e820 reserved ranges to the second kernel,

Passes or *doesn't* pass?

Because from all the staring, it wants to pass the reserved ranges.

> for this case, it is good enough to use the IORES_DESC_RESERVED, which
> can ensure that exactly matches the reserved resource ranges when
> walking through iomem resources.


> The second problem is about the SEV case. Now, the IORES_DESC_RESERVED has been
> created for the reserved areas, therefore the check needs to be expanded so that
> these areas are not mapped encrypted when using ioremap().
> +static int __ioremap_check_desc_none_and_reserved(struct resource *res)

That name is crap. If you need to add another desc type, it becomes
wrong again. And that whole code around flags->desc_other is just silly:

Make that machinery around it something like this:

struct ioremap_desc {
        u64 flags;

instead of "struct ioremap_mem_flags" and that struct ioremap_desc is an
ioremap descriptor which will carry all kinds of settings. system_ram
can then be a simple flag too.

__ioremap_caller() will hand it down to __ioremap_check_mem() etc
and there it will set flags like IOREMAP_DESC_MAP_ENCRYPTED or
IOREMAP_DESC_MAP_DECRYPTED and this way you'll have it explicit and
clear in __ioremap_caller():

        if ((sev_active() &&
	    (io_desc.flags & IOREMAP_DESC_MAP_ENCRYPTED)) ||
                prot = pgprot_encrypted(prot);

But that would need a pre-patch which does that conversion.

> Maybe i should split it into two patches. The change of
> __ioremap_check_desc_none_and_reserved() should be a separate patch.
> Any idea?

See above and yes, definitely separate patches.


Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists