linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] selftests/lam: get_user additions and LAM enabled check

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]

Message-ID: <2cff1613-9fd0-4c9e-ad02-970ac8614cec@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 09:34:36 -0700
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Maciej Wieczor-Retman <maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>,
 shuah@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
 dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de, mingo@...hat.com,
 tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
 kirill@...temov.name, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] selftests/lam: get_user additions and LAM enabled
 check

On 11/26/24 06:34, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
> Recent change in how get_user() handles pointers [1] has a specific case
> for LAM. It assigns a different bitmask that's later used to check
> whether a pointer comes from userland in get_user().
> 
> While currently commented out (until LASS [2] is merged into the kernel)
> it's worth making changes to the LAM selftest ahead of time.
> 
> Modify cpu_has_la57() so it provides current paging level information
> instead of the cpuid one.
> 
> Add test case to LAM that utilizes a ioctl (FIOASYNC) syscall which uses
> get_user() in its implementation. Execute the syscall with differently
> tagged pointers to verify that valid user pointers are passing through
> and invalid kernel/non-canonical pointers are not.
> 
> Also to avoid unhelpful test failures add a check in main() to skip
> running tests if LAM was not compiled into the kernel.
> 
> Code was tested on a Sierra Forest Xeon machine that's LAM capable. The
> test was ran without issues with both the LAM lines from [1] untouched
> and commented out. The test was also ran without issues with LAM_SUP
> both enabled and disabled.
> 
> 4/5 level pagetables code paths were also successfully tested in Simics
> on a 5-level capable machine.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241024013214.129639-1-torvalds@linux-foundation.org/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241028160917.1380714-1-alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com/
> 
> Maciej Wieczor-Retman (3):
>    selftests/lam: Move cpu_has_la57() to use cpuinfo flag
>    selftests/lam: Skip test if LAM is disabled
>    selftests/lam: Test get_user() LAM pointer handling
> 
>   tools/testing/selftests/x86/lam.c | 122 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>   1 file changed, 117 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 

Looks good to me. For selftests if it is going through x86 tree.

Acked-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>

If you want me to take this through selftest tree, I can do that.

thanks,
-- Shuah