linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC V2 13/17] kmap: Add stray write protection for device pages

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]

Message-ID: <20200720091740.GP10769@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jul 2020 11:17:40 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 13/17] kmap: Add stray write protection for device
 pages

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 09:13:19PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:21:39AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:20:52AM -0700, ira.weiny@...el.com wrote:
> > > @@ -31,6 +32,20 @@ static inline void invalidate_kernel_vmap_range(void *vaddr, int size)
> > >  
> > >  #include <asm/kmap_types.h>
> > >  
> > > +static inline void enable_access(struct page *page)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (!page_is_access_protected(page))
> > > +		return;
> > > +	dev_access_enable();
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline void disable_access(struct page *page)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (!page_is_access_protected(page))
> > > +		return;
> > > +	dev_access_disable();
> > > +}
> > 
> > These are some very generic names, do we want them to be a little more
> > specific?
> 
> I had them named kmap_* but Dave (I think it was Dave) thought they did not
> really apply strictly to kmap_*.
> 
> They are static to this file which I thought may be sufficient to 'uniqify'
> them?

They're static to a .h, which means they're all over the place ;-)