lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/2] x86: Don't let pgprot_modify() change the page encryption bit
From
Date
On 9/5/19 8:21 AM, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote:
>>>   #define pgprot_modify pgprot_modify
>>>   static inline pgprot_t pgprot_modify(pgprot_t oldprot, pgprot_t
>>> newprot)
>>>   {
>>> -    pgprotval_t preservebits = pgprot_val(oldprot) & _PAGE_CHG_MASK;
>>> -    pgprotval_t addbits = pgprot_val(newprot);
>>> +    pgprotval_t preservebits = pgprot_val(oldprot) &
>>> +        (_PAGE_CHG_MASK | sme_me_mask);
>>> +    pgprotval_t addbits = pgprot_val(newprot) & ~sme_me_mask;
>>>       return __pgprot(preservebits | addbits);
>>>   }
>> _PAGE_CHG_MASK is claiming similar functionality about preserving bits
>> when changing PTEs:
...
>>> #define _PAGE_CHG_MASK  (PTE_PFN_MASK | _PAGE_PCD | _PAGE_PWT
>>> |         \
>>>                           _PAGE_SPECIAL | _PAGE_ACCESSED |
>>> _PAGE_DIRTY | \
>>>                           _PAGE_SOFT_DIRTY | _PAGE_DEVMAP)
>> This makes me wonder if we should be including sme_me_mask in
>> _PAGE_CHG_MASK (logically).
>
> I was thinking the same. But what confuses me is that addbits isn't
> masked with ~_PAGE_CHG_MASK, which is needed for sme_me_mask, since the
> problem otherwise is typically that the encryption bit is incorrectly
> set in addbits. I wonder whether it's an optimization or intentional.

I think there's a built-in assumption that 'newprot' won't have any of
the _PAGE_CHG_MASK bits set. That makes sense because there are no
protection bits in the mask. But, the code certainly doesn't enforce that.

Are you seeing 'sme_me_mask' bits set in 'newprot'?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-05 18:00    [W:0.134 / U:2.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site