linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/7] mm/x86: Add missing pud helpers

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: <db95c7abea9cd252a791d15359a4d940d91524e3.camel@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 19:36:30 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "peterx@...hat.com"
	<peterx@...hat.com>, "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "hughd@...gle.com" <hughd@...gle.com>, "willy@...radead.org"
	<willy@...radead.org>, "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com"
	<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	"mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org"
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"kirill@...temov.name" <kirill@...temov.name>, "christophe.leroy@...roup.eu"
	<christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
	"aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "riel@...riel.com"
	<riel@...riel.com>, "npiggin@...il.com" <npiggin@...il.com>,
	"osalvador@...e.de" <osalvador@...e.de>, "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org"
	<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
	"mgorman@...hsingularity.net" <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, "Huang, Ying"
	<ying.huang@...el.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "Williams, Dan J"
	<dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] mm/x86: Add missing pud helpers

On Fri, 2024-06-21 at 07:51 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> But, still, what if you take a Dirty=1,Write=1 pud and pud_modify() it
> to make it Dirty=1,Write=0?  What prevents that from being
> misinterpreted by the hardware as being a valid 1G shadow stack mapping?

Hmm, it looks like we could use an arch_check_zapped_pud() that does a warning
like arch_check_zapped_pte/pmd() too. Not that we had no use for one before
this.