linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] s390/pgtable: support __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SWP

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: <55b6b582-51ca-b869-2055-674fe4c563e6@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Mar 2022 18:12:16 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Donald Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Liang Zhang <zhangliang5@...wei.com>,
        Pedro Gomes <pedrodemargomes@...il.com>,
        Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@...il.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] s390/pgtable: support
 __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SWP_EXCLUSIVE

On 15.03.22 17:58, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 
>>> This would mean that it is not OK to have bit 52 not zero for swap PTEs.
>>> But if I read the POP correctly, all bits except for the DAT-protection
>>> would be ignored for invalid PTEs, so maybe this comment needs some update
>>> (for both bits 52 and also 55).
>>>
>>> Heiko might also have some more insight.
>>
>> Indeed, I wonder why we should get a specification exception when the
>> PTE is invalid. I'll dig a bit into the PoP.
> 
> SA22-7832-12 6-46 ("Translation-Specification Exception") is clearer
> 
> "The page-table entry used for the translation is
> valid, and bit position 52 does not contain zero."
> 
> "The page-table entry used for the translation is
> valid, EDAT-1 does not apply, the instruction-exe-
> cution-protection facility is not installed, and bit
> position 55 does not contain zero. It is model
> dependent whether this condition is recognized."
> 

I wonder if the following matches reality:

diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h
index 008a6c856fa4..6a227a8c3712 100644
--- a/arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h
@@ -1669,18 +1669,16 @@ static inline int has_transparent_hugepage(void)
 /*
  * 64 bit swap entry format:
  * A page-table entry has some bits we have to treat in a special way.
- * Bits 52 and bit 55 have to be zero, otherwise a specification
- * exception will occur instead of a page translation exception. The
- * specification exception has the bad habit not to store necessary
- * information in the lowcore.
  * Bits 54 and 63 are used to indicate the page type.
  * A swap pte is indicated by bit pattern (pte & 0x201) == 0x200
- * This leaves the bits 0-51 and bits 56-62 to store type and offset.
- * We use the 5 bits from 57-61 for the type and the 52 bits from 0-51
- * for the offset.
- * |                     offset                        |01100|type |00|
+ * |                     offset                        |XX1XX|type |S0|
  * |0000000000111111111122222222223333333333444444444455|55555|55566|66|
  * |0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901|23456|78901|23|
+ *
+ * Bits 0-51 store the offset.
+ * Bits 57-62 store the type.
+ * Bit 62 (S) is used for softdirty tracking.
+ * Bits 52, 53, 55 and 56 (X) are unused.
  */
 
 #define __SWP_OFFSET_MASK      ((1UL << 52) - 1)


I'm not sure why bit 53 was indicated as "1" and bit 55 was indicated as
"0". At least for 52 and 55 there was a clear description.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb