linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] kfence: add function to mask address bits

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:   Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:27:30 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] kfence: add function to mask address bits

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 14:25, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 09:48:58AM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 09:02PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > From: Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
> > >
> > > s390 only reports the page address during a translation fault.
> > > To make the kfence unit tests pass, add a function that might
> > > be implemented by architectures to mask out address bits.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
> >
> > I noticed this breaks on x86 if CONFIG_KFENCE_KUNIT_TEST=m, because x86
> > conditionally declares some asm functions if !MODULE.
> >
> > I think the below is the simplest to fix, and if you agree, please carry
> > it as a patch in this series before this patch.
>
> Will do.
>
> > With the below, you can add to this patch:
> >
> >       Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
>
> Done - Thank you! I silently assume this means also you have no
> objections if we carry this via the s390 tree for upstreaming.

I think that's reasonable. I'm not aware of any conflicts, nor am I
expecting any for the upcoming cycle.

Thanks,
-- Marco