linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/9] Linear Address Masking enabling

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, 21 Sep 2021 18:52:44 +0200
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@...hat.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Taras Madan <tarasmadan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/9] Linear Address Masking enabling

On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 at 15:11, Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 09:24:23AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 4:16 PM Kirill A. Shutemov
> > <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Linear Address Masking[1] (LAM) modifies the checking that is applied to
> > > 64-bit linear addresses, allowing software to use of the untranslated
> > > address bits for metadata.
> > >
> > > The patchset brings support for LAM for userspace addresses.
> > >
> > > The most sensitive part of enabling is change in tlb.c, where CR3 flags
> > > get set. Please take a look that what I'm doing makes sense.
> > >
> > > The patchset is RFC quality and the code requires more testing before it
> > > can be applied.
> > >
> > > The userspace API is not finalized yet. The patchset extends API used by
> > > ARM64: PR_GET/SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL. The API is adjusted to not imply ARM
> > > TBI: it now allows to request a number of bits of metadata needed and
> > > report where these bits are located in the address.
> > >
> > > There's an alternative proposal[2] for the API based on Intel CET
> > > interface. Please let us know if you prefer one over another.
> > >
> > > The feature competes for bits with 5-level paging: LAM_U48 makes it
> > > impossible to map anything about 47-bits. The patchset made these
> > > capability mutually exclusive: whatever used first wins. LAM_U57 can be
> > > combined with mappings above 47-bits.
> > >
> > > I include QEMU patch in case if somebody wants to play with the feature.
> >
> > Exciting! Do you plan to send the QEMU patch to QEMU?
>
> Sure. After more testing, once I'm sure it's conforming to the hardware.

A follow up after H.J.'s LPC talk:
https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/11/contributions/1010/
(also +Carlos)

As far as I understood, this kernel series depends on the Intel CET patches.

Where are these compiler-rt patches that block gcc support?