linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] x86/sgx: Add an attribute for the amount of SGX memory in a NUMA node

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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 28 Sep 2021 06:01:38 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] x86/sgx: Add an attribute for the amount of SGX
 memory in a NUMA node

On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 13:39 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
> 
> On 9/23/2021 1:30 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > So cat you pick these patches to your patch set, and squash
> > this fix to it?
> 
> My patch set is focused on SGX selftests while this series target the 
> x86 tree. I assumed that this series would go into x86 separately and 
> after they land we can proceed with the SGX selftest work.

But now your series has no chance to be applied, given that
it contains patches which have discarded given a superior
approach.

Anyway, node fields are initialized here:

		if (!node_isset(nid, sgx_numa_mask)) {
			spin_lock_init(&sgx_numa_nodes[nid].lock);
			INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sgx_numa_nodes[nid].free_page_list);
			node_set(nid, sgx_numa_mask);
		}

The correct way to fix the issue is to add

			sgx_numa_nodes[nid].size = 0;

Using kcalloc() would not be very sound, since you would wastefully
initialize the pre-existing fields of the struct two times: first
with zeros, and then with "real" values.

/Jarkko