linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 15/29] x86/arch_prctl: Create ARCH_SET_STATE_ENABLE/ARCH_GET_STATE

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: <878rz7fyhe.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Tue, 05 Oct 2021 14:27:25 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>, bp@...e.de,
        luto@...nel.org, mingo@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        len.brown@...el.com, lenb@...nel.org, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        thiago.macieira@...el.com, jing2.liu@...el.com,
        ravi.v.shankar@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 15/29] x86/arch_prctl: Create
 ARCH_SET_STATE_ENABLE/ARCH_GET_STATE_ENABLE

On Tue, Oct 05 2021 at 13:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 11:49:05AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> So this gives us two options:
>> 
>>    1) Bitmap with proper sanity checks
>> 
>>       reject (1 << 17) and (1 << 18)
>>       grant (1 << 17 | 1 << 18)
>> 
>>       but for sanity sake and also for ease of filtering, we want to
>>       restrict a permission request to one functional block at a time.
>> 
>>       #define X86_XCOMP_AMX	(1 << 17 | 1 << 18)
>>       #define X86_XCOMP_XYZ1    (1 << 19)
>> 
>>       But that gets a bit odd when there is a component which depends on
>>       others:
>> 
>>       #define X86_XCOMP_XYZ2    (1 << 19 | 1 << 20)
>> 
>>    2) Facility based numerical interface, i.e.
>> 
>>       #define X86_XCOMP_AMX	1
>>       #define X86_XCOMP_XYZ1    2
>>       #define X86_XCOMP_XYZ2    3
>> 
>>       is way simpler to understand IMO.
>
> I'm thinking 2 makes most sense. Perhaps we could use the highest
> feature number involved in the facility to denote it? The rationale
> being that we don't have to invent yet another enumeration and it's
> easier to figure out what's what.

That makes sense. So the above would be:

      #define X86_XCOMP_AMX	18      (implies 17)
      #define X86_XCOMP_XYZ1    19
      #define X86_XCOMP_XYZ2    20      (implies 19)

Thanks,

        tglx