linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 6/6] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel parameter

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:   Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:55:53 -0800
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 6/6] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by
 kernel parameter

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:24:21PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> > On Nov 21, 2019, at 1:51 PM, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@...el.com> wrote:

> > Almost all of what's in this set will be required in whatever
> > final solution we want to end up with. Out of this:
> 
> Why don’t we beat it into shape and apply it, hidden behind BROKEN.
> Then we can work on the rest of the patches and have a way to test them.

That's my goal (and thanks for the help with the constructive beating,
"die" is a much better choice that "panic" at this stage of development).

I'm not sure I see the need to hide it behind BROKEN. The reasoning
behind choosing disabled by default was so that this wouldn't affect
anyone unless they chose to turn it on.

-Tony