linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] Use 1st-level for IOVA translation

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:   Sat, 21 Dec 2019 11:14:35 +0800
From:   Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "Kumar, Sanjay K" <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>,
        "jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com" <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        "Sun, Yi Y" <yi.y.sun@...el.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] Use 1st-level for IOVA translation

Hi again,

On 2019/12/20 19:50, Liu, Yi L wrote:
> 3) Per VT-d spec, FLPT has canonical requirement to the input
> addresses. So I'd suggest to add some enhance regards to it.
> Please refer to chapter 3.6:-).
> 
> 3.6 First-Level Translation
> First-level translation restricts the input-address to a canonical address (i.e., address bits 63:N have
> the same value as address bit [N-1], where N is 48-bits with 4-level paging and 57-bits with 5-level
> paging). Requests subject to first-level translation by remapping hardware are subject to canonical
> address checking as a pre-condition for first-level translation, and a violation is treated as a
> translation-fault.

It seems to be a conflict at bit 63. It should be the same as bit[N-1]
according to the canonical address requirement; but it is also used as
the XD control. Any thought?

Best regards,
baolu