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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Fri, 7 May 2021 10:44:33 +0100
From:   Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....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 04/05/2021 18:44, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 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.
> 

Ah I see what you mean. In this case "padding" is just a sizer to ensure 
that flags is always the same alignment - it's not intended to be used. 
As I noted previously though it's completely pointless as this only on 
arm64 and even 32 bit Arm would naturally align the following __u64.

reserved[] is for expansion and I guess we could have a union over the 
whole struct (like siginfo) but I think it's generally clearer to just 
spell out the reserved fields at the end of the struct.

TLDR; the union will be gone along with "padding" in the next version. 
"reserved" remains at the end of the struct for future use.

Thanks,

Steve