linux-kernel - Re: [REWORKED PATCH 1/1] iommu/vt-d: Preset Access/Dirty bits for IOVA over FL

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:   Mon, 17 May 2021 09:27:49 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     sashal@...nel.org, ashok.raj@...el.com, jroedel@...e.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [REWORKED PATCH 1/1] iommu/vt-d: Preset Access/Dirty bits for
 IOVA over FL

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 03:17:53PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On 5/17/21 3:07 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:49:13AM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> > > [ Upstream commit a8ce9ebbecdfda3322bbcece6b3b25888217f8e3 ]
> > > 
> > > The Access/Dirty bits in the first level page table entry will be set
> > > whenever a page table entry was used for address translation or write
> > > permission was successfully translated. This is always true when using
> > > the first-level page table for kernel IOVA. Instead of wasting hardware
> > > cycles to update the certain bits, it's better to set them up at the
> > > beginning.
> > > 
> > > Suggested-by: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210115004202.953965-1-baolu.lu@linux.intel.com
> > > Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
> > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/iommu/intel/iommu.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> > >   include/linux/intel-iommu.h |  2 ++
> > >   2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > [Note:
> > > - This is a reworked patch of
> > >    https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20210512144819.664462530@linuxfoundation.org/T/#m65267f0a0091c2fcbde097cea91089775908faad.
> > > - It aims to fix a reported issue of
> > >    https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213077.
> > > - Please help to review and test.]
> > 
> > What stable tree(s) is this supposed to be for?
> 
> It's for 5.10.37.

But the above commit is already in 5.10.y.  And what about 5.11 and
5.12, were those backports incorrect?

confused,

greg k-h