Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86/mm/pageattr: Do not strip pte flags from cpa->pfn

[Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 03:40:19PM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote:
> Removing the PAGE_NX bit from cpa->pfn will corrupt the page frame
> number address rather than removing PAGE_NX as the code intends. This
> is unlikley to be a problem in practice because _PAGE_BIT_NX is bit 63
> and most machines do not have page frame numbers that reach that high.
> 
> Still, pte flags are never stored in cpa->pfn so we can safely delete
> the code.
> 
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> Cc: Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
> ---
>  arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c | 5 -----
>  1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> index 893921b12272..d5240be55915 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> @@ -885,11 +885,6 @@ static void populate_pte(struct cpa_data *cpa,
>  	pte = pte_offset_kernel(pmd, start);
>  
>  	while (num_pages-- && start < end) {
> -
> -		/* deal with the NX bit */
> -		if (!(pgprot_val(pgprot) & _PAGE_NX))
> -			cpa->pfn &= ~_PAGE_NX;
> -
>  		set_pte(pte, pfn_pte(cpa->pfn, pgprot));
>  
>  		start	 += PAGE_SIZE;
> -- 

I think this should be part of the 1st patch because there you're
correcting ->pfn to actually be a pfn.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.