linux-kernel - Re: [RFCv2 00/10] 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:   Thu, 12 May 2022 21:39:30 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 00/10] Linear Address Masking enabling

On Thu, May 12 2022 at 10:22, Dave Hansen wrote:

> On 5/10/22 23:49, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> 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.
>> So aren't we creating a problem with LAM_U48 where programs relying on
>> it are of limited sustainability?
>
> I think allowing apps to say, "It's LAM_U48 or bust!" is a mistake.

That'd be outright stupid.

> It's OK for a debugging build that runs on one kind of hardware.  But,
> if we want LAM-using binaries to be portable, we have to do something
> different.
>
> One of the stated reasons for adding LAM hardware is that folks want to
> use sanitizers outside of debugging environments.  To me, that means
> that LAM is something that the same binary might run with or without.

On/off yes, but is there an actual use case where such a mechanism would
at start time dynamically chose the number of bits?

> It's totally fine with me if the kernel only initially supports LAM_U57.
>  But, I'd ideally like to make sure that the ABI can support LAM_U57,
> LAM_U48, AMD's UAI (in whatever form it settles), or other masks.

Sure. No argument here.

Thanks,

        tglx