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  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]
Date:	Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:43:36 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <>
To:	Linus Torvalds <>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	Stefani Seibold <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Andreas Brief <>,
	Martin Runge <>
Subject: Re: [x86, vdso] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at d34bd000

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Linus Torvalds
<> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <> wrote:
>> If the only immediate problem is the code generation size, then Andy
>> already had a (simpler) hack-around:
>>   #undef CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE
>> in vclock_gettime.c
> Btw, we should seriously consider getting rid of CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE.
> It was of questionable value to begin with, and I think that the
> actual PPro bug is about one of
>  - Errata 66, "Delayed line invalidation".
>  - Errata 92, "Potential loss of data coherency"
> both of which affect all PPro versions afaik (there is also a UP
> errata 51 wrt ordering of cached and uncached accesses that was fixed
> in the sB1 stepping).
> And as far as I know, we have never actually seen the bug in real
> life, EVEN WHEN PPRO WAS COMMON. The workaround was always based on
> knowledge of the errata afaik.

I admit I don't fully follow the description of the errata, but it's
not obvious to me that making smp_rmb() emit lfence is going to do any
good.  The description seems to be suggesting using actual LOCK
operations to work around the erratum.

> So I do think we might want to consider retiring that config option
> entirely as a "historical oddity".
> And very much so for the vdso case. Do we even do the asm alternative
> fixups for the vdso?

Yes, we've done that for a couple years for rdtsc_barrier's benefit.

> I also suspect we should get rid of CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE, or at least
> limit it to !SMP - I don't think anybody ever made SMP systems with
> those IDT/Centaur Winchip chips in them.

Why does OOSTORE matter for !SMP?  Is it just for poking at hardware registers?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists