linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] x86/paravirt: remove 32-bit support from PARAVIRT

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c0917f5a-ffec-d422-bf8b-8c8859ea4312@suse.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Aug 2020 20:42:51 +0200
From:   Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
To:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Deep Shah <sdeep@...are.com>,
        "VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] x86/paravirt: remove 32-bit support from
 PARAVIRT_XXL

On 10.08.20 18:53, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 8/10/20 12:39 AM, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>> On 09.08.20 04:34, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 8/7/20 4:38 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> @@ -377,10 +373,7 @@ static inline pte_t __pte(pteval_t val)
>>>>    {
>>>>        pteval_t ret;
>>>>    -    if (sizeof(pteval_t) > sizeof(long))
>>>> -        ret = PVOP_CALLEE2(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val, (u64)val >>
>>>> 32);
>>>> -    else
>>>> -        ret = PVOP_CALLEE1(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val);
>>>> +    ret = PVOP_CALLEE1(pteval_t, mmu.make_pte, val);
>>>>          return (pte_t) { .pte = ret };
>>>
>>>
>>> Can this now simply return (pte_t) ret?
>>
>> I don't think so, but I can turn it into
>>
>>    return native_make_pte(PVOP_CALLEE1(...));
> 
> 
> I thought that since now this is only built for 64-bit we don't have to
> worry about different pte_t definitions and can do what we do for
> example, for __pgd()?

Yes, I did that:

  return (pte_t) { ret };


Juergen