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: <a249e651-a2a1-4ea9-b262-0d04a8abaf0e@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 10:01:17 +0200
From: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
To: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@...rix.com>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/xen: fix memblock_reserve() usage on PVH

On 25.07.24 09:31, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> The current usage of memblock_reserve() in init_pvh_bootparams() is done before
> the .bss is zeroed, and that used to be fine when
> memblock_reserved_init_regions implicitly ended up in the .meminit.data
> section.  However after commit 73db3abdca58c memblock_reserved_init_regions
> ends up in the .bss section, thus breaking it's usage before the .bss is
> cleared.
> 
> Move and rename the call to xen_reserve_extra_memory() so it's done in the
> x86_init.oem.arch_setup hook, which gets executed after the .bss has been
> zeroed, but before calling e820__memory_setup().
> 
> Fixes: 38620fc4e893 ('x86/xen: attempt to inflate the memory balloon on PVH')
> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
> ---
> While the commit that introduced the user-noticeable regression is
> 73db3abdca58c, I think 38620fc4e893 should have been more careful to not
> initialize the memblock ranges ahead of the .bss zeroing.

Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>

I'd prefer using 73db3abdca58c for the fixes tag. Otherwise you'd need to
add this patch to the stable branches, too, which is technically not really
needed.

Additionally I'd like to drop the Fixes: tag from the prereq patch, as this
one doesn't really fix anything.

I can do both while committing.


Juergen

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ