linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv8 00/11] 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:   Mon, 12 Sep 2022 15:55:02 -0700
From:   Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Ashok Raj <ashok_raj@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        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>,
        Taras Madan <tarasmadan@...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>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>, jacob.jun.pan@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 00/11] Linear Address Masking enabling

Hi Dave,

On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:41:56 -0700, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
wrote:

> On 9/12/22 13:39, Jacob Pan wrote:
> >>> +	if (pasid_valid(mm->pasid) && !forced) {  
> > I don't think this works since we have lazy pasid free.  for example,
> > after all the devices did sva_unbind, mm->pasid  we'll remain valid
> > until mmdrop(). LAM  should be supported in this case.  
> 
> Nah, it works fine.
> It just means that the rules are "you can't do LAM if your process
> *EVER* got a PASID" instead of "you can't do LAM if you are actively
> using your PASID".
Sure it works if you change the rules, but this case need to documented.

> 
> We knew that PASID use would be a one-way trip for a process when we
> moved to the simplified implementation.  This is just more fallout from
> that.  It's fine.
> 
Is LAM also a one-way trip?

> > Perhaps, we could introduce another prctl flag for SVA, PR_GET_SVA?
> > Both iommu driver and LAM can set/query the flag. LAM applications may
> > not be the only ones want to know if share virtual addressing is  on.  
> 
> I don't think it's a good idea to add yet more UABI around this issue.
> Won't the IOMMU folks eventually get their hardware in line with LAM?
> Isn't this situation temporary?


Thanks,

Jacob