linux-kernel - Re: i686 quirk for AMD Geode

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4AFA6E50.7030808@zytor.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:57:04 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Matteo Croce <technoboy85@...il.com>,
	Sven-Haegar Koch <haegar@...net.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: i686 quirk for AMD Geode

On 11/10/2009 10:36 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>
>> Do you have *any* *evidence* *whatsoever* for that assertion?!
> 
> No, just basic feeling based on implementation cost and difficulty
> vs gains as I explained.

Quite on the contrary; in hardware it would be pretty hard to *not* do
the right thing.

>> I personally will consider something that doesn't implement proper
>> security check to be a potential security hole and will NAK the patch.
> 
> Even in the case of the NOPL instruction ? I clearly don't see
> the potential security hole !
> 

You have it backwards.  Prove that there *isn't* one and we'll talk.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/