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]

Message-ID: <f1aac14e-380c-f76f-84bb-fdff56207d2f@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 10:11:46 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok_raj@...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,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 00/11] Linear Address Masking enabling

On 9/21/22 10:08, Ashok Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 09:57:47AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 9/15/22 10:28, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:> +	/* Serialize against
>> address tagging enabling *
>>> +	if (mmap_write_lock_killable(mm))
>>> +		return -EINTR;
>>> +
>>> +	if (!arch_can_alloc_pasid(mm)) {
>>> +		mmap_write_unlock(mm);
>>> +		return -EBUSY;
>>> +	}
>> Shouldn't this actually be some kind of *device* check?
> The device will enable svm only when its capable of it, and performs all
> the normal capability checks like PASID, ATS etc before enabling it.
> This is the final step before the mm is hooked up with the IOMMU.

What does that mean, though?

Are you saying that any device compatibility with an mm is solely
determined by the IOMMU in play, so the IOMMU code should host the mm
compatibility checks?