linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Skip UV runtime services mapping in the efi_runtime

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:23:07 +0100
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:	Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Russ Anderson <rja@....com>,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Skip UV runtime services mapping in the
 efi_runtime_disabled case

On Wed, 03 Aug, at 02:36:07PM, Alex Thorlton wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 09:28:06AM -0500, Alex Thorlton wrote:
> > So, it definitely needs to go in for v4.8, but it's kind of a toss-up
> > for the older kernels.  I'll discuss this with the other guys around
> > here to see what they think, and get back to you a bit later, if that's
> > alright?
> 
> We talked about this, and I think everyone here agrees that there's not
> much point in pulling this change back to the older kernels.  The only
> exception here would be that we'd definitely like this change on the
> older kernels *if* my other memmap fixes get ported back to those
> kernels, though I don't know what the chances are of those changes
> making it through stable.
> 
> So, unless you have a particular reason that you'd like to pull it back
> to the old kernels, or you think that my other fixes might make it back
> there, I don't see much point.
> 
> Let me know what you think!

Sound reasoning. I'll apply this to v4.8 only.