From: Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
linux-um@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9] hugetlbfs: flush TLBs correctly after huge_pmd_unshare
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 18:22:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5e2db11a-46ac-9b15-7b76-f27b718606c5@cambridgegreys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C1607574-0A6F-4CEC-B488-795750EEF968@gmail.com>
On 26/11/2021 17:49, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>> On Nov 26, 2021, at 2:21 AM, Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26/11/2021 06:08, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> Below is a patch to address CVE-2021-4002 [1] that I created to backport
>>> to 4.9. The stable kernels of 4.14 and prior ones do not have unified
>>> TLB flushing code, and I managed to mess up the arch code a couple of
>>> times.
>>> Now that the CVE is public, I would appreciate your review of this
>>> patch. I send 4.9 for review - the other ones (4.14 and prior) are
>>> pretty similar.
>>> [1] https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/11/25/1
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nadav
>>
>> I do not quite see the rationale for patching um
>>
>> It supports only standard size pages. You should not be able to map a huge page there (and hugetlbfs).
>>
>> I have "non-standard page size" somewhere towards the end of my queue, but it keeps falling through - not enough spare time to work on it.
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> I did not look at the dependencies, so I did not even look if
> hugetlbfs depends on !um.
>
> Do you prefer that for um, I will just do a BUG()? I prefer
> to have a stub just to avoid potential build issues.
>
>
Stub will be fine.
I was just checking in case I missed something.
Brgds,
--
Anton R. Ivanov
Cambridgegreys Limited. Registered in England. Company Number 10273661
https://www.cambridgegreys.com/
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
linux-um@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9] hugetlbfs: flush TLBs correctly after huge_pmd_unshare
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 18:22:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5e2db11a-46ac-9b15-7b76-f27b718606c5@cambridgegreys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C1607574-0A6F-4CEC-B488-795750EEF968@gmail.com>
On 26/11/2021 17:49, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>> On Nov 26, 2021, at 2:21 AM, Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26/11/2021 06:08, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> Below is a patch to address CVE-2021-4002 [1] that I created to backport
>>> to 4.9. The stable kernels of 4.14 and prior ones do not have unified
>>> TLB flushing code, and I managed to mess up the arch code a couple of
>>> times.
>>> Now that the CVE is public, I would appreciate your review of this
>>> patch. I send 4.9 for review - the other ones (4.14 and prior) are
>>> pretty similar.
>>> [1] https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/11/25/1
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nadav
>>
>> I do not quite see the rationale for patching um
>>
>> It supports only standard size pages. You should not be able to map a huge page there (and hugetlbfs).
>>
>> I have "non-standard page size" somewhere towards the end of my queue, but it keeps falling through - not enough spare time to work on it.
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> I did not look at the dependencies, so I did not even look if
> hugetlbfs depends on !um.
>
> Do you prefer that for um, I will just do a BUG()? I prefer
> to have a stub just to avoid potential build issues.
>
>
Stub will be fine.
I was just checking in case I missed something.
Brgds,
--
Anton R. Ivanov
Cambridgegreys Limited. Registered in England. Company Number 10273661
https://www.cambridgegreys.com/
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
linux-um@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9] hugetlbfs: flush TLBs correctly after huge_pmd_unshare
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 18:22:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5e2db11a-46ac-9b15-7b76-f27b718606c5@cambridgegreys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C1607574-0A6F-4CEC-B488-795750EEF968@gmail.com>
On 26/11/2021 17:49, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>> On Nov 26, 2021, at 2:21 AM, Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26/11/2021 06:08, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> Below is a patch to address CVE-2021-4002 [1] that I created to backport
>>> to 4.9. The stable kernels of 4.14 and prior ones do not have unified
>>> TLB flushing code, and I managed to mess up the arch code a couple of
>>> times.
>>> Now that the CVE is public, I would appreciate your review of this
>>> patch. I send 4.9 for review - the other ones (4.14 and prior) are
>>> pretty similar.
>>> [1] https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/11/25/1
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nadav
>>
>> I do not quite see the rationale for patching um
>>
>> It supports only standard size pages. You should not be able to map a huge page there (and hugetlbfs).
>>
>> I have "non-standard page size" somewhere towards the end of my queue, but it keeps falling through - not enough spare time to work on it.
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> I did not look at the dependencies, so I did not even look if
> hugetlbfs depends on !um.
>
> Do you prefer that for um, I will just do a BUG()? I prefer
> to have a stub just to avoid potential build issues.
>
>
Stub will be fine.
I was just checking in case I missed something.
Brgds,
--
Anton R. Ivanov
Cambridgegreys Limited. Registered in England. Company Number 10273661
https://www.cambridgegreys.com/
_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-26 18:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-26 6:08 [PATCH 4.9] hugetlbfs: flush TLBs correctly after huge_pmd_unshare Nadav Amit
2021-11-26 6:08 ` Nadav Amit
2021-11-26 6:08 ` Nadav Amit
2021-11-26 6:08 ` Nadav Amit
2021-11-26 10:21 ` Anton Ivanov
2021-11-26 10:21 ` Anton Ivanov
2021-11-26 10:21 ` Anton Ivanov
2021-11-26 17:49 ` Nadav Amit
2021-11-26 17:49 ` Nadav Amit
2021-11-26 17:49 ` Nadav Amit
2021-11-26 17:49 ` Nadav Amit
2021-11-26 18:22 ` Anton Ivanov [this message]
2021-11-26 18:22 ` Anton Ivanov
2021-11-26 18:22 ` Anton Ivanov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5e2db11a-46ac-9b15-7b76-f27b718606c5@cambridgegreys.com \
--to=anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-um@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=nadav.amit@gmail.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.