linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v3 06/14] init: Call mem_encrypt_init() after Hyper-V hypercall init is done

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: <Y3uPQTKDnD+/tv6g@zn.tnic>
Date:   Mon, 21 Nov 2022 15:46:25 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
Cc:     hpa@...or.com, kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com,
        wei.liu@...nel.org, decui@...rosoft.com, luto@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
        kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, lpieralisi@...nel.org,
        robh@...nel.org, kw@...ux.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com, arnd@...db.de,
        hch@...radead.org, m.szyprowski@...sung.com, robin.murphy@....com,
        thomas.lendacky@....com, brijesh.singh@....com, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        isaku.yamahata@...el.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        jane.chu@...cle.com, seanjc@...gle.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 06/14] init: Call mem_encrypt_init() after Hyper-V
 hypercall init is done

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 10:41:29AM -0800, Michael Kelley wrote:
> Fix this by moving mem_encrypt_init() after late_time_init() and
> related clock initializations. The intervening initializations don't
> do any I/O that requires the swiotlb, so moving mem_encrypt_init()
> slightly later has no impact.

I hope you're right. Our boot ordering is fragile as hell. But
mem_encrypt_init() doesn't do a whole lot of important setup - that has
happened a lot earlier already - so I'm not too worried.

But we'll see what breaks in wider testing.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette