linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Restrict devmem for confidential VMs

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: <63bb3383-de43-4638-b229-28c33c1582be@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:50:50 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Cc: Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
 Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
 stable@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
 Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>, Naveen N Rao <naveen@...nel.org>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Restrict devmem for confidential VMs

On 4/17/25 12:11, Dan Williams wrote:
>  arch/x86/Kconfig          |    4 ++++
>  arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c |   31 ++++---------------------------
>  drivers/char/mem.c        |   27 +++++++++------------------
>  include/linux/io.h        |   21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)

This looks like a good idea on multiple levels. We can take it through
tip, but one things that makes me nervous is that neither of the "CHAR
and MISC DRIVERS" supporters are even on cc.

> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> (supporter:CHAR and MISC DRIVERS)
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> (supporter:CHAR and MISC DRIVERS)

I guess arm and powerpc have cc_platform_has() so it's not _completely_
x86 only, either. Acks from those folks would also be appreciated since
it's going to affect them most immediately.

Also, just to confirm, patch 2 can go to stable@ without _any_
dependency on patch 1, right?