linux-kernel - Re: [syzbot] WARNING in __change_page_attr_set

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: <YzFhyd3LDdDFtP6l@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 26 Sep 2022 10:24:41 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        tech-board@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, brijesh.singh@....com,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, jane.chu@...cle.com,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, seanjc@...gle.com,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        "open list:BPF (Safe dynamic programs and tools)" 
        <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] WARNING in __change_page_attr_set_clr

On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 05:10:19PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:

> Peter, I remember an earlier version of your patch having some various
> enforcement modes.  Since the strict enforcement has actually broken a
> few things, should we resurrect the nicer soft detection mode?  Or,
> maybe make the soft one the only mode for now?

Well, I think we'll have to disable the whole thing for i386, but I'm
sincerely hoping this is the only one we'll hit on x86_64 -- I did spend
some effort fixing W^X issues a while back.