linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86 : Ensure X86_FLAGS

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: <CA+55aFzMdWY6o512mXeOz6Mv7dWYn6W7csLDCsqhSGssRbsHLw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:32:22 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com>
Cc:	Anish Bhatt <anish@...lsio.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
	sebastian@...-team.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 : Ensure X86_FLAGS_NT is cleared on syscall entry

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com> wrote:
>
> I don't get it. Why isn't this patch acceptable, at least on x86-64
> where NT is never valid?

Why do you think it's not acceptable? Why do you raise a stink *one*
day after the patch - that seems to not be very important - is sent
out?

Why would SIGSEGV even be that bad? The program does crap things, why
accept it silently?

I don't think the patch is necessarily wrong, but I don't see why it
would be critical, and I *definitely* don't see why the f*ck you are
making a big deal of it.

Go away, stop bothering people.

         Linus
--
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/