linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 04/14] x86/mm: use INVLPGB for kernel TLB flushes

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: <1FC042E2-7210-45F1-A094-40849100F483@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 14:44:37 +0200
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Cc: the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 peterz@...radead.org,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 zhengqi.arch@...edance.com,
 thomas.lendacky@....com,
 kernel-team@...a.com,
 "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 jackmanb@...gle.com,
 jannh@...gle.com,
 mhklinux@...look.com,
 andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
 Manali.Shukla@....com,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 04/14] x86/mm: use INVLPGB for kernel TLB flushes



> On 24 Feb 2025, at 14:31, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 02:48:54PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> Use broadcast TLB invalidation for kernel addresses when available.
>> 
>> Remove the need to send IPIs for kernel TLB flushes.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>

Nothing concrete against this patch, but I do not remember reviewing it
thoroughly, and I do not see that I sent any “Reviewed-by” tag for it
before, so please remove it. I only reviewed thoroughly and gave
“reviewed-by” for patch 9.

[ I would note at this opportunity that while I managed to convince myself
patch 9 is safe, I personally would have considered taking a more defensive
approach there. I may reiterate it there. ]