linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 9/9] x86-64: Add CONFIG_UNSAFE

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]

Date:	Mon, 6 Jun 2011 16:51:24 -0400
From:	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	pageexec@...email.hu, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, x86@...nel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
	richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Louis Rilling <Louis.Rilling@...labs.com>,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 9/9] x86-64: Add CONFIG_UNSAFE_VSYSCALLS to feature-removal-schedule

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> We *definitely* don't want to name it in a way that makes some random
> person just turn it off because it's scary, since the random person
> *shouldn't* turn it off today. Comprende?

Yes, and fixed in the cleaned up version.

>
> And the annoying part about the whole patch series is how the whole
> re-sending has gone on forever.

If I have the patch-resending protocol wrong, please enlighten me.
I'm not sure how to make future work less annoying.

> Just pick some approach, do it, and
> don't even bother making it a config option for now. If we can replace
> the vsyscall page with a page fault or int3 or whatever, and it's only
> used for the 'time()' system call, just do it.

Really?

I won't personally complain about the 200+ ns hit, but I'm sure
someone will cc: me on a regression report if there's no option.

>
> The series is now extended with the cleanup patches so the end result
> looks reasonable, but why have the whole "first implement it, then
> clean it up" and sending it as a whole series. That's annoying. Just
> send the cleaned-up end result to begin with.

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/