linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] x86/sgx: Add SGX infrastructure to recover from poison

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:   Wed, 28 Jul 2021 15:29:31 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] x86/sgx: Add SGX infrastructure to recover from
 poison

On 7/28/21 1:46 PM, Tony Luck wrote:
> +int sgx_memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
> +{
...
> +	page->flags |= SGX_EPC_PAGE_POISON;

Is this safe outside of any locks?

I see the reclaimer doing things like:

                epc_page->flags &= ~SGX_EPC_PAGE_RECLAIMER_TRACKED;

I'd worry that this code and other non-atomic epc_page->flags
manipulation could trample on each other.

This might need to some some atomic bit manipulation *and* convert all
the other epc_page->flags users.