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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:16:18 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
 x86@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 12/34] x86/cpu/intel: Actually use "address
 configuration" infrastructure for MKTME

On 2/23/24 03:41, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> -	/*
>> -	 * KeyID bits effectively lower the number of physical address
>> -	 * bits.  Update cpuinfo_x86::x86_phys_bits accordingly.
>> -	 */
>> -	c->x86_phys_bits -= keyid_bits;
>> +	/* KeyID bits effectively lower the number of physical address bits */
>> +	bsp_addr_config.phys_addr_reduction_bits = keyid_bits;
> Do we expect reduction_bits to stack? Like can multiple features steal
> physical bits? Make use "+= keyid_bits" here?

Good question.

IMNHO, the idea that different "users" of these fields can be oblivious
to each other is the reason that this has gotten so bad.

I thought about interfering or stacking a bit when I was putting this
together.  It's one of the reasons I chose to add the specific
'phys_addr_reduction_bits' field _instead_ of continuing to just munge
'phys_addr_bits'.

I want 'bsp_addr_config' to represent the *inputs* that eventually end
up in x86_config, and have the inputs distilled down to the output in
one (or very few) places.

There are thankfully very few users of this: Intel and AMD memory
encryption and one Intel CPU erratum for very old CPUs.  So they can't
stack in practice.

If we ever need something to stack, I'd prefer that we add two fields,
maybe:

	bsp_addr_config.enc_reduction_bits

and

	bsp_addr_config.maxphyaddr_erratum_override

or something, then have any collision be resolved when 'bsp_addr_config'
is consulted, in *ONE* central pace in the code.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ