linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] Handle set_memory

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: <1d9c03d9-9ec4-4b59-93ae-bf0a6c163217@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2023 09:57:34 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "elena.reshetova@...el.com" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        "isaku.yamahata@...el.com" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
        "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Handle set_memory_XXcrypted() errors

On 10/23/23 09:47, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> For paranoid CoCo VM users, using panic_on_warn=1 seems workable.
> However, with current code and this patch series, it's possible have
> set_memory_decrypted() return an error and have set_memory_encrypted()
> fix things up as best it can without generating any warnings. It seems
> like we need a WARN or some equivalent mechanism if either of these
> fails, so that CoCo VMs can panic if they don't want to run with any
> inconsistencies (again, assuming the host isn't malicious).

Adding a warning to the fixup path in set_memory_encrypted() would be
totally fine with me.