linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] x86-64: Emulate legacy vsyscalls

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: <20110608091531.GA8761@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:15:31 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	pageexec@...email.hu
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>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Louis Rilling <Louis.Rilling@...labs.com>,
	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] x86-64: Emulate legacy vsyscalls


* pageexec@...email.hu <pageexec@...email.hu> wrote:

> On 8 Jun 2011 at 8:48, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > > you seemed to have made a distinction, you tell me ;), [...]
> > 
> > I have not made any distinction at all, *you* wrote:
> 
> i asked you that question because for all this time you seemed to 
> have been very worked up by the fact that i called the page fault 
> path as not 'fast'. i thought maybe what caused your nervous 
> reaction and desperate attempts at trying to justify it was due to 
> some misunderstanding in wording, but i now see that we probably 
> talked about the same thing. with the exception that you *still* 
> have not provided any evidence for your claim. why is that Ingo? do 
> you have nothing to prove your single cycle 'improvemnt'? (sorry, 
> had a chuckle again ;).

You are again trying to shift the topic. Your original claim, which 
you snipped from your reply:

  > a page fault is never a fast path

is simply ridiculous on its face and crazy talk, and no amount of 
insults you hurl at me will change that fact - you ignored the 
various pieces of evidence that i cited that the page fault code is 
very much a fastpath: past commits, cycles estimations, a list of 
various (obvious) types of impact, the statements of several 
prominent kernel developers (including Linus) that establish that the 
page fault path is very much treated as a fastpath by everyone who 
develops it and you also ignored the fact that there's a working 
alternative that has none of those disadvantages.

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/