linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH rc v1 1/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add ignored bits to fix STE update sequence

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: <aTSH5Eap7leYQtPl@nvidia.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2025 11:45:40 -0800
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: <will@...nel.org>, <robin.murphy@....com>, <joro@...tes.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <skolothumtho@...dia.com>, <praan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rc v1 1/4] iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Add ignored bits to fix STE
 update sequence

On Sat, Dec 06, 2025 at 03:34:08PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2025 at 04:52:00PM -0800, Nicolin Chen wrote:
> > @@ -1106,16 +1115,17 @@ static u8 arm_smmu_entry_qword_diff(struct arm_smmu_entry_writer *writer,
> >  		 * allowed to set a bit to 1 if the used function doesn't say it
> >  		 * is used.
> >  		 */
> > -		WARN_ON_ONCE(target[i] & ~target_used[i]);
> > +		WARN_ON_ONCE(target[i] & ~target_used[i] & ~ignored[i]);
> >  
> >  		/* Bits can change because they are not currently being used */
> > -		unused_update[i] = (entry[i] & cur_used[i]) |
> > +		unused_update[i] = (entry[i] & (cur_used[i] | ignored[i])) |
> >  				   (target[i] & ~cur_used[i]);
> 
> This can't be right? We don't want to ever copy an ignored bit from
> entry, the ignored bits should always come from target. The line
> should be left alone.

Hmm, without this change, the following coverages will be broken:
  arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_s1dssbypass_to_stebypass
  arm_smmu_v3_write_ste_test_stebypass_to_s1dssbypass

Both were expect num_syncs=2, but it would be 3 if we don't include
the ignored bits to unused_update. Or should we update the num_syncs
instead?

Nicolin