linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm/cpa: Warn if 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: <f4232326b949f96aa88bd40309389d4b99288fa1.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Oct 2023 16:58:37 +0000
From:   "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To:     "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Cui, Dexuan" <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
        "mikelley@...rosoft.com" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/mm/cpa: Warn if set_memory_XXcrypted() fails

On Mon, 2023-10-30 at 11:27 +0300, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com
wrote:
> Tha patch looks good:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> 
Thanks!

> It intended to get upstream alongside with the caller fixes to leak
> memory
> on failure, right? Maybe get it into one patchset?

Why do you think? Since the callers are smattered across various
drivers, and those changes are now disconnected from the changes to
CPA, I thought to just follow up each area separately. For example I
was going to put all the hyper-v related changes together, but that
part is RFC due to the fact that I can't really test it. The MS folks
said they could help out there. So the different areas were feeling
like separate series.