linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 6/8] x86/mm: Provide ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK and ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED

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: <20220629005342.3thjt26e6p6znyrh@black.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Jun 2022 03:53:42 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
        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: [PATCHv3 6/8] x86/mm: Provide ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK and
 ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 04:42:40PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On 6/10/22 07:35, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> 
> > +	/* Update CR3 to get LAM active */
> > +	switch_mm(current->mm, current->mm, current);
> 
> Can you at least justify this oddity?  When changing an LDT, we use a
> dedicated mechanism.  Is there a significant benefit to abusing switch_mm
> for this?

I'm not sure I follow. LAM mode is set in CR3. switch_mm() has to handle
it anyway to context switch. Why do you consider it abuse?

> 
> Also, why can't we enable LAM on a multithreaded process?  We can change an
> LDT, and the code isn't even particularly complicated.

I reworked this in v4[1] and it allows multithreaded processes. Have you
got that version?

Intel had issue with mail server, but I assumed it didn't affect my
patchset since I see it in the archive.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220622162230.83474-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com/

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov