Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 28 Jul 2020 12:27:17 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] x86/kaslr: Simplify process_gb_huge_pages
Message-ID: <202007281225.C24B966D7@keescook>
References: <20200727215047.3341098-1-nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
 <20200727230801.3468620-7-nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200727230801.3468620-7-nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 07:07:59PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> Short-circuit the whole function on 32-bit.
> 
> Replace the loop to determine the number of 1Gb pages with arithmetic.
> 
> Fix one minor bug: if the end of the region is aligned on a 1Gb
> boundary, the current code will not use the last available 1Gb page due
> to an off-by-one error.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>

Can you add some KUnit tests could be written to do validation of the
refactorings? Touching this code is so painful. :)

-Kees

> +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/kaslr.c
> @@ -546,49 +546,43 @@ static void store_slot_info(struct mem_vector *region, unsigned long image_size)
>  static void
>  process_gb_huge_pages(struct mem_vector *region, unsigned long image_size)
>  {
> -	unsigned long addr, size = 0;
> +	unsigned long pud_start, pud_end, gb_huge_pages;
>  	struct mem_vector tmp;
> -	int i = 0;
>  
> -	if (!max_gb_huge_pages) {
> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_32) || !max_gb_huge_pages) {
>  		store_slot_info(region, image_size);
>  		return;
>  	}

Won't max_gb_huge_pages always be false for 32-bit?

-- 
Kees Cook