linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/sev: Do RMP memory coverage check after max

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]

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:17:35 -0500
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/sev: Do RMP memory coverage check after max_pfn has
 been set

On 6/21/24 08:59, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 10:38:37AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> -static u64 probed_rmp_base, probed_rmp_size;
>> +static u64 probed_rmp_base, probed_rmp_end, probed_rmp_size;
> 
> Why do you need _end if you have _size already?
> 
> IOW, please compute _end where you need it instead of adding yet another
> static.

I think it makes the code easier to follow and less of a chance to compute
the value wrong given you have to substract 1 (end = base + size - 1). I
guess I can create a #define or a helper function so that the calculation
is always the same if that is preferred.

Thanks,
Tom

> 
> Thx.
>