linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 0/8] x86, xsave: rework of extended state handling, LWP support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110518180224.GA24932@alberich.amd.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 May 2011 20:02:24 +0200
From:	Andreas Herrmann <herrmann.der.user@...glemail.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Hans Rosenfeld <hans.rosenfeld@....com>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 0/8] x86, xsave: rework of extended state handling, LWP
 support

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 01:30:20PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Hans Rosenfeld <hans.rosenfeld@....com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 03:23:05AM -0400, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > FYI, the bits in tip:x86/xsave crash on boot on an AMD X2 testbox:
> > 
> > > Full crashlog and kernel config attached. I've excluded x86/save from 
> > > tip:master for now.
> > 
> > this issue has been fixed a few weeks ago.
> > 
> > Are there any plans to include x86/xsave into tip:master again?
> 
> Regarding the LWP bits, that branch was indeed excluded because of that crash, 
> while re-checking the branch today i noticed at least one serious design error 
> in it, which makes me reconsider the whole thing:

Independend of all the concerns and useful comments regarding LWP ...
it seems to me that patches 1-7 are still of use (cleaning up the
save/restore code making it more maintainable).

Wouldn't it make sense to add patches 1-7 to a branch that is tested
with linux-next to find potential regressions?


Andreas
--
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/