linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: static_cpu_has_safe: discard dynamic check after init

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: <569D40CE.5090506@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:45:18 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: static_cpu_has_safe: discard dynamic check after
 init

On 01/18/16 10:39, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:29:24AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> I think that, if we can make static_cpu_has be unconditionally safe as
>> a result
> 
> Problem with this is the additional .altinstructions entry for
> X86_FEATURE_ALWAYS. And sometimes you don't really need to use the _safe
> variant when you know you're safe.
> 

I think the two-byte optimization is the real issue if there is one at
all.  I don't care about the inittext, and unless I'm misremembering
completely altinstructions also get ejected.

So I don't personally object to killing off the unsafe variant.

	-hpa