linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 50/54] KVM: x86/mmu: Optimize and clean up so called "last nonleaf level" logic

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: <e7a290c6-aeca-bd7b-d0be-d1af44713138@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Jun 2021 22:22:54 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Yu Zhang <yu.c.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 50/54] KVM: x86/mmu: Optimize and clean up so called "last
 nonleaf level" logic

On 22/06/21 19:57, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> For 32-bit paging (non-PAE), the adjustments are needed purely because
> bit 7 is ignored if PSE=0.  Retain that logic as is, but make
> is_last_gpte() unique per PTTYPE

... which makes total sense given where it's used, too.

> +#if PTTYPE == 32
> +	/*
> +	 * 32-bit paging requires special handling because bit 7 is ignored if
> +	 * CR4.PSE=0, not reserved.  Clear bit 7 in the gpte if the level is
> +	 * greater than the last level for which bit 7 is the PAGE_SIZE bit.
> +	 *
> +	 * The RHS has bit 7 set iff level < (2 + PSE).  If it is clear, bit 7
> +	 * is not reserved and does not indicate a large page at this level,
> +	 * so clear PT_PAGE_SIZE_MASK in gpte if that is the case.
> +	 */
> +	gpte &= level - (PT32_ROOT_LEVEL + !!mmu->mmu_role.ext.cr4_pse);

!! is not needed and possibly slightly confusing?  (We know it's a 
single bit).

Paolo