linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] MIPS: kvm: Use vm_get_page

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 11:40:06 +0100
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     Huacai Chen <chenhc@...ote.com>
Cc:     Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com>,
        "open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] MIPS: kvm: Use vm_get_page_prot to get protection
 bits

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 09:18:15AM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> Hi, Thomas,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 8:35 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
> <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 03:34:14PM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > > Hi, Thomas,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:13 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
> > > <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > MIPS protection bits are setup during runtime so using defines like
> > > > PAGE_SHARED ignores this runtime changes. Using vm_get_page_prot
> > > > to get correct page protection fixes this.
> > > Is there some visible bugs if without this fix?
> >
> > no exec isn't enabled for these mappings, if cpu supports it.
> The whole series wants to set XI if supported?

that and RI where possible. I want to get rid of the PAGE_* defines,
because they lead to forgetting about RI and XI protection map setup,
which doesn't use the defines and would need another set of defines.
So by using only protection_map[] everything goes via one place.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]