linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/12] swiotlb-xen: ensure to issue well-formed XENMEM

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2109131328130.10523@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>
Date:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 13:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
To:     Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
cc:     Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] swiotlb-xen: ensure to issue well-formed
 XENMEM_exchange requests

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.09.2021 01:14, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Sep 2021, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> While the hypervisor hasn't been enforcing this, we would still better
> >> avoid issuing requests with GFNs not aligned to the requested order.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
> >> ---
> >> I wonder how useful it is to include the alignment in the panic()
> >> message.
> > 
> > Not very useful given that it is static. I don't mind either way but you
> > can go ahead and remove it if you prefer (and it would make the line
> > shorter.)
> > 
> > 
> >> I further wonder how useful it is to wrap "bytes" in
> >> PAGE_ALIGN(), when it is a multiple of a segment's size anyway (or at
> >> least was supposed to be, prior to "swiotlb-xen: maintain slab count
> >> properly").
> > 
> > This one I would keep, to make sure to print out the same amount passed
> > to memblock_alloc.
> 
> Oh - if I was to drop it from the printk(), I would have been meaning to
> also drop it there. If it's useless, then it's useless everywhere.

That's fine too