linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] x86-64: Add CONFIG_UNSAFE

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: <20110602080937.GA5722@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 2 Jun 2011 10:09:37 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc:	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>, x86@...nel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
	richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] x86-64: Add CONFIG_UNSAFE_VSYSCALLS to
 feature-removal-schedule


* Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 13:41:56 EDT, Andrew Lutomirski said:
> 
> >> +         On a system with recent enough glibc (probably 2.14 or
> >>  +         newer) and no static binaries, you can say N without a
> >>  +         performance penalty to improve security
> >>
> >> So I checked my laptop (Fedora 16 Rawhide), and found a bunch of static binaries. The ones
> >> that look like people may care:
> 
> > The binaries will still work -- they'll just take a small performance
> > hit (~220ns on Sandy Bridge) every time they call time().
> 
> Ah. I misparsed the Kconfig help - I read it as "If you have no 
> static binaries, setting this to N doesn't introduce a performance 
> hit" (with an implied "if you have static binaries, this will hose 
> you").  Adding "Static binaries will continue to work at a very 
> small performance penalty" would probably help.

Yeah, would be nice to add that clarification. (or better yet, 
reformulate it in a way that makes it really obvious from the get 
go.)

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/