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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20120223225934.GA7362@kroah.com> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:59:34 -0800 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org, Raphael Prevost <raphael@...o.asia>, Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] i387: stable kernel backport On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 02:38:42PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote: > > > > OK so indeed I will only be able to check that it boots :-/ > > Well, we could do some trivial test-harness that just forces the issue > with regular timer interrupts (and even without AES-NI). I think Peter > talked about that when we were trying to hunt it down - but I think he > was then able to reproduce the problem without anything special and we > dropped it. > > Essentially, just doing something like > > if (irq_fpu_usable()) { > kernel_fpu_begin(); > kernel_fpu_end(); > } > > in do_irq() and do_softirq() would stress-test things even without > wireless, and even without AES-NI. > > You'd still need an x86-32 machine to test on, because x86-64 was > immune to this issue. > > But yeah, the impact of this seems to be small enough that for older > kernels (which are likely used on older systems for maintenance > anyway) disabling AES-NI on x86-32 really might be the way to go. I think that's already the case, 2.6.32 has the following depends for CRYPTO_AES_NI_INTEL: depends on (X86 || UML_X86) && 64BIT It was this way until commit 0d258efb (crypto: aesni-intel - Ported implementation to x86-32) which showed up in 2.6.38. So we should be safe for 2.6.32 no changes needed, right? greg k-h -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists