netdev - RE: [Patch v4 04/13] x86/mm: Handle decryption/re-encryption of bss

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: <BYAPR21MB1688568F9F76C1FB4AA49FE9D7FE9@BYAPR21MB1688.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Jan 2023 19:14:54 +0000
From:   "Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        "wei.liu@...nel.org" <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        "luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "lpieralisi@...nel.org" <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
        "robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>, "kw@...ux.com" <kw@...ux.com>,
        "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
        "m.szyprowski@...sung.com" <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        "robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
        "thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        "brijesh.singh@....com" <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        "ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "isaku.yamahata@...el.com" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
        "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        "jane.chu@...cle.com" <jane.chu@...cle.com>,
        "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: [Patch v4 04/13] x86/mm: Handle decryption/re-encryption of
 bss_decrypted consistently

From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 11:11 AM
> 
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 04:25:16PM +0000, Michael Kelley (LINUX) wrote:
> > I'm ambivalent on the backport to stable.  One might argue that older
> > kernel versions are conceptually wrong in using different conditions for
> > the decryption and re-encryption.  But as you said, they aren't broken
> > from a practical standpoint because sme_me_mask and
> > CC_ATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT are equivalent prior to my patch set.  However,
> > the email thread with Sathyanarayanan Kuppuswamy, Tom Lendacky,
> > and Dexuan Cui concluded that a Fixes: tag is appropriate.
> 
> Right, just talked to Tom offlist.
> 
> A Fixes tag triggers a lot of backporting activity and if it is not really
> needed, then let's leave it out.
> 
> If distros decide to pick up vTOM support, then they'll pick up the whole set
> anyway.
> 
> And if we decide we really need it backported for whatever reason, we will
> simply send it into stable and the same backporting activity will be triggered
> then. But then we'd at least have a concrete reason for it.
> 
> Makes sense?
> 

Yep, that matches my thinking.  I've avoided marking something for stable unless
it fixes something that is actually broken.

Michael