linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: call verify

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]

Message-ID: <AANLkTik3C01Pvv_RvgKXctjKjw=XS4AeEN94ADZtw+sW@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 9 Nov 2010 22:28:16 +0200
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To:	Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>
Cc:	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: call verify_cpu during 32bit CPU startup

Hi Kees,

On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 09:46:39PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> I actually don't see 0/4 or 2/4 on LKML yet. It would be better to
>> have the rationale in the patch that changes the code for future
>> reference. The summary email will be lost in the noise much more
>> easily.

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com> wrote:
> Looks like delivery delays somewhere. I see it in the archive:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/11/9/380

So why can't we do patch 2/4 XD_DISABLE clearing in
early_init_intel()? Why do we want to call verify_cpu() from
arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S and not from
arch/x86/boot/compressed/head_32.S like we do on 64-bit?

                        Pekka
--
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/