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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 17:07:05 -0700
From:   Alison Schofield <>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>, Borislav Petkov <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        David Howells <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,
        Kai Huang <>,
        Jacob Pan <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC 47/62] mm: Restrict MKTME memory encryption to
 anonymous VMAs

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 01:55:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:44:07PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > From: Alison Schofield <>
> > 
> > Memory encryption is only supported for mappings that are ANONYMOUS.
> > Test the VMA's in an encrypt_mprotect() request to make sure they all
> > meet that requirement before encrypting any.
> > 
> > The encrypt_mprotect syscall will return -EINVAL and will not encrypt
> > any VMA's if this check fails.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alison Schofield <>
> > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <>
> This should be folded back into the initial implemention, methinks.

It is part of the initial implementation. I looked for
places to split the implementation into smaller,
reviewable patches, hence this split. None of it gets
built until the CONFIG_X86_INTEL_MKTME is introduced
in a later patch.

The encrypt_mprotect() patchset is ordered like this:
1) generalize mprotect to support the mktme extension
2) wire up encrypt_mprotect()
3) implement encrypt_mprotect()
4) keep reference counts on encryption keys (was VMAs)
5) (this patch) restrict to anonymous VMAs.
I thought Patch 5) was a small, but meaningful split. It 
accentuates the fact that MKTME is restricted to anonymous

Alas, I want to make it logical to review, so I'll move it.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists