linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: MM: Add the workaround of Errata 774769

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: <50C5EF96.2040006@ti.com>
Date:	Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:50:06 +0530
From:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	"'Catalin Marinas'" <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	Boojin Kim <boojin.kim@...sung.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"'Will Deacon'" <will.deacon@....com>,
	"'Kukjin Kim'" <kgene.kim@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: MM: Add the workaround of Errata 774769

On Monday 10 December 2012 07:46 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:40:06PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> Whats the stand on such erratas ? I saw on one of thread one of
>> you suggesting to stop patching kernel where secure/non-secure
>> kernel will need different errata WA.
>
> Well, yes, there's that too.  I think were we got to was deciding that
> it is impossible to tell whether an errata is required for any particular
> SoC: even when you know the rXpX number of the core, you don't know if,
> as part of the design, the manufacturer incorporated some fix.
>
> So, the conclusion we came to was that the _only_ place that work-arounds
> like these can be enabled is before we get anywhere near the kernel - in
> whatever pre-kernel code the platform has, and doing whatever platform
> specific magic is required to get those work-arounds enabled.
>
> What that means is that having the work-arounds in the kernel is pretty
> pointless when it's a matter of enabling a bit or two in some secure-only
> register.
>
> I don't think I heard any objections to removing those work-arounds which
> fall into this category from the kernel; I think that's something we need
> to schedule for a few kernel versions time, after we've put them into the
> feature-removal file, and marked them in the config as going away.
>
Thanks for confirming it. All the patches in the $subject series falls
into secure/non-secure category and hence subject to the same issues.

Regards
Santosh


--
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/