linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] x86/mtrr: support setting MTRR state for software defined MTRRs

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: <807cca5b-06b9-da85-738b-d88fc10298cb@suse.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Feb 2023 10:17:12 +0100
From:   Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        lists@...dbynature.de, mikelley@...rosoft.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] x86/mtrr: support setting MTRR state for software
 defined MTRRs

On 14.02.23 10:10, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:02:51AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> I just don't like the idea of trying to catch all possible misuses in
>> lower levels, at the same time introducing the need to modify those
>> tests in case a new valid use case is popping up.
> 
> So what would you do: generally allow this so that potentially other
> guest configurations misuse it?

I guess this largely depends on the functionality. I don't see why anyone
would try to use MTRR overwrite functionality without really needing it.

But maybe I'm wrong here and I'm under-estimating the "creativity" of
kernel hackers.

> And when we decide to change it, all those users will come running and
> complaining that we broke it?
> 
> And then we're stuck with a nasty workaround in the tree because we have
> to support them too?
> 
> See, all we do here is because of such misguided (or maybe didn't know
> better) decisions which have happened a long time ago.

I can see your point.

Maybe I haven't seen enough crazy hacks yet. :-)

No need to further discuss this topic from my side, as I have voiced my
opinion and you did so, too. I will add the tests you are asking for.


Juergen

Download attachment "OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3099 bytes)

Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature" of type "application/pgp-signature" (496 bytes)