linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/xsave: Robustify and merge macros

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:	Fri, 3 Apr 2015 16:14:26 +0200
From:	Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@...cle.com>
To:	Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@...cle.com>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/xsave: Robustify and merge macros

On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 04:06:30PM +0200, Quentin Casasnovas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 06:12:59PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 05:52:10PM +0200, Quentin Casasnovas wrote:
> > > I've tried compiling this on top of v4.0-rc5 and I get a compile error
> > > because alt_end_marker isn't defined.  Which other patches should I take to
> > > test this?
> > 
> > It needs tip/master.
> >
> 
> So I've had a look at tip/master and I don't _think_ commit
> 
>    4332195 ("x86/alternatives: Add instruction padding")
> 
> is correct.
> 
> [...]
>
> we can use something like this even more horrible line:

Derp! Already spotted a couple of errors below..

> 
> .skip -(((145f - 144f) - ((-(((144f - 143f) - (141b - 140b)) >  0) * (144f - 143f))  +
>       	       	       	  (-(((144f - 143f) - (141b - 140b)) <= 0) * (141b - 143b)))) > 0) *
                                                                                     ^ 140b
>         ((145f - 144f) - ((-(((144f - 143f) - (141b - 140b)) >  0) * (144f - 143f))  +
>       	       	       	  (-(((144f - 143f) - (141b - 140b)) <= 0) * (141b - 143b))))
                                                                                     ^ 140b
> 
> This is obviously completely un-tested and not even compiled! :)
> 

Told you!

Quentin
--
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/