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  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:   Fri, 23 Sep 2022 08:46:06 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <>
Cc:     Ashok Raj <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,
        Jacob Pan <>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <>,
        Ashok Raj <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,,
        Kostya Serebryany <>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <>,
        Andrey Konovalov <>,
        Alexander Potapenko <>,
        Taras Madan <>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <>,
        "H . J . Lu" <>,
        Andi Kleen <>,
        Rick Edgecombe <>,,,
        Joerg Roedel <>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 00/11] Linear Address Masking enabling

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 12:38:26PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:

> > So I would assume an untagged pointer should just be fine for the IOMMU
> > to walk. IOMMU currently wants canonical addresses for VA.
> Right. But it means that LAM compatibility can be block on two layers:
> IOMMU and device. IOMMU is not the only HW entity that has to be aware of
> tagged pointers.

Why does a device need to care about this? What do you imagine a
device doing with it?

The userspace should program the device with the tagged address, the
device should present the tagged address on the bus, the IOMMU should
translate the tagged address the same as the CPU by ignoring the upper


Powered by blists - more mailing lists