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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:31:43 +0000 From: Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@...us-software.ie> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, boon.leong.ong@...el.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/intel/quark: Parameterize the kernel's IMR lock logic On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 08:58 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > So why not simply do the patch below? Very few people use boot > parameters, and the > complexity does not seem to be worth it. > > Furthermore I think an IMR range in itself is safe enough - it's not > like such > register state is going to be randomly corrupted, even with the > 'lock' bit unset. Hi Ingo. I agree - to flip the lock bit you need to be in ring-0 anyway. > So it's a perfectly fine protective measure against accidental memory > corruption > from the DMA space. It should not try to be more than that. > > And once we do this, I suggest we get rid of the 'lock' parameter > altogether - > that will further simplify the code. > > Thanks, > > Ingo That was the V1 of this patch https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/linux.kernel/6ZuVOF3TJow Andriy asked for the boot parameter to control the state of the IMR lock bit, I'm just as happy to go back to that version TBH
Powered by blists - more mailing lists