linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 5/6] KVM: arm64: ioctl to fetch/store tags in a guest

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:   Tue, 4 May 2021 18:44:37 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, qemu-devel@...gnu.org,
        Juan Quintela <quintela@...hat.com>,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
        Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@...aro.org>,
        Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>,
        Haibo Xu <Haibo.Xu@....com>, Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 5/6] KVM: arm64: ioctl to fetch/store tags in a guest

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 05:06:07PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> On 27/04/2021 18:58, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 04:43:08PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> > > index 24223adae150..2b85a047c37d 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> > > @@ -184,6 +184,20 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_events {
> > >   	__u32 reserved[12];
> > >   };
> > > +struct kvm_arm_copy_mte_tags {
> > > +	__u64 guest_ipa;
> > > +	__u64 length;
> > > +	union {
> > > +		void __user *addr;
> > > +		__u64 padding;
> > > +	};
> > > +	__u64 flags;
> > > +	__u64 reserved[2];
> > > +};
[...]
> > Maybe add the two reserved
> > values to the union in case we want to store something else in the
> > future.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here. What would the reserved fields be unioned
> with? And surely they are no longer reserved in that case?

In case you want to keep the structure size the same for future
expansion and the expansion only happens via the union, you'd add some
padding in there just in case. We do this for struct siginfo with an
_si_pad[] array in the union.

-- 
Catalin