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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 10:02:30 -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 09:49, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 09:37:46AM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> Ok, I'll remove the new static and resubmit. There is also a logic error
>> in the original check which should be using PFN_UP instead of PHYS_PFN, so
>> I'll include that, too.
> 
> So we said this fix should not go to stable because SNP host is not upstream
> yet.

Correct.

>  
>> Do you want a single patch or two patches, one to fix the PHYS_PFN to
>> PFN_UP and one to move the check?
> 
> Since this is snp_rmptable_init() and that is also SNP host then I think
> a single patch is fine.

Will do.

Thanks,
Tom

> 
> Thx.
>