linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6.6 000/389] 6.6.76-rc2 review

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: <Z7X-VrwJrLSBN-XZ@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:52:54 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com>,
	Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux@...ck-us.net, shuah@...nel.org,
	patches@...nelci.org, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de,
	jonathanh@...dia.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
	sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com, srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de,
	conor@...nel.org, hargar@...rosoft.com, broonie@...nel.org,
	Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, willy@...radead.org,
	Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.6 000/389] 6.6.76-rc2 review

Hi Dan,

On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 06:43:52PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> What's happening is that we backport the latest kselftests and run
> them on the old kernels.  This is a supported thing so kselftests
> are supposed to be able to handle that.

Yes, I do this occasionally as well (a single rootfs with the kselftests
that I use with different kernels).

> So we need to modify the testing/selftests/arm64/mte/check_hugetlb_options.c
> to check if the feature is present and disable the test for older
> kernels.

I'm not worried about the test failing yet, we can solve it later, but
rather the WARN_ON_ONCE() in the arm64 copy_highpage(). We should not
trigger this condition since hugetlb vmas don't have VM_MTE_ALLOWED set,
so PROT_MTE mappings should be refused and the test shouldn't get any
mapping.

I tried vanilla 6.6 and it trips over as well, so something wrong in how
we handle MTE hugetlb pages. I'm looking into it.

-- 
Catalin