linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] Revert "x86/sev-es: Handle string port IO to kernel memory properly"

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]

Message-ID: <YKUDGIrnR2doYEKj@8bytes.org>
Date:   Wed, 19 May 2021 14:22:48 +0200
From:   Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, Hyunwook Baek <baekhw@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        hpa@...or.com, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Cfir Cohen <cfir@...gle.com>,
        Erdem Aktas <erdemaktas@...gle.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Mike Stunes <mstunes@...are.com>,
        Martin Radev <martin.b.radev@...il.com>,
        Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
        linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] Revert "x86/sev-es: Handle string port IO to kernel
 memory properly"

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 05:38:29PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Alternatively, and probably even better, fold this revert into the switch to
> the unchecked version (sounds like those will use kernel-specific flavors?).

I folded this revert into the previous commit. But I kept the
__get_user()/__put_user() calls and just added a comment explaining why
they are used and why it is safe to use them.

After all, even the get_kernel*() functions call __get_user_size() under
the hood.

Regards,

	Joerg