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]

Date:   Tue, 14 Sep 2021 11:11:06 +0200
From:   Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
To:     Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
Cc:     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 13.09.2021 22:31, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> 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

Thanks, I'll see about dropping that then.

Another Arm-related question has occurred to me: Do you actually
mind the higher-than-necessary alignment there? If so, a per-arch
definition of the needed alignment would need introducing. Maybe
that could default to PAGE_SIZE, allowing Arm and alike to get away
without explicitly specifying a value ...

Jan