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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 14:28:25 +0200 From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com> To: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@...ux.ibm.com>, Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>, Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Dirtying, failing memop: don't indicate suppression Am 12.05.22 um 15:10 schrieb Janis Schoetterl-Glausch: > If a memop fails due to key checked protection, after already having > written to the guest, don't indicate suppression to the guest, as that > would imply that memory wasn't modified. > > This could be considered a fix to the code introducing storage key > support, however this is a bug in KVM only if we emulate an > instructions writing to an operand spanning multiple pages, which I > don't believe we do. > > v2 -> v3 > * tweak commit message > * explicitly reset the protection code to 0 on termination > * use variable to pass termination arg > * add documentation > * fix magic constant in selftest > > Given the changes I did not pick up the r-b's. Claudio, you had reviewed the first one. Is this still valid?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists