linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/9] user_mode_vm removal and associated cleanups

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: <20150319063312.GA7312@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Mar 2015 07:33:12 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] user_mode_vm removal and associated cleanups

* Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:

> Hi all-
> 
> The user_mode vs user_mode_vm distinction scares me.  Let's fix it.
> This series adds user_mode_ignore_vm86, makes user_mode reliable,
> and removes user_mode_vm.  It also tidies up a couple warts I found
> along the way.
> 
> This survives basic testing, but I haven't tried that hard to test it.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Ingo, this may conflict a bit with the do_debug and do_bounds fixes.

I like it, in fact I'd suggest we remove user_mode_ignore_vm86() 
altogether, as it's such a marginal optimization, it only affects 
x86-32 kernels, and because we keep getting this wrong.

Keep a single, simple user_mode() definition.


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/