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:   Sat, 14 May 2022 02:01:23 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        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 Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 00/10] Linear Address Masking enabling

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 01:07:43PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 11:51 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/12/22 12:39, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > >> 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?
> >
> > I'd love to hear from folks doing the userspace side of this.  Will
> > userspace be saying: "Give me all the bits you can!".  Or, will it
> > really just be looking for 6 bits only, and it doesn't care whether it
> > gets 6 or 15, it will use only 6?
> 
> (speaking more or less on behalf of the userspace folks here)
> I think it is safe to assume that in the upcoming year or two HWASan
> will be fine having just 6 bits for the tags on x86 machines.
> We are interested in running it on kernels with and without
> CONFIG_X86_5LEVEL=y, so U48 is not an option in some cases anyway.

Just to be clear: LAM_U48 works on machine with 5-level paging enabled as
long as the process doesn't map anything above 47-bit.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov