linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] x86: put msr-index.h in uapi

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]

Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:51:07 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>, arnd@...db.de,
        mmarek@...e.com, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        airlied@...ux.ie, davem@...emloft.net, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        slash.tmp@...e.fr, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch,
        rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk, msalter@...hat.com,
        tklauser@...tanz.ch, mpe@...erman.id.au, mingo@...nel.org,
        hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] x86: put msr-index.h in uapi

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:24:02PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> So if some userspace component depends on that particular msr header
> (which, unlike ipt_SAME, was not intended for export), is it not
> reasonable to expect them to make a copy if and when they need it?

Yeah, either copy the whole header or better yet use own defines.
Especially in this particular case, where we have a bunch of MSRs which
are in the processor manuals. Exporting the defines is pretty pointless
and even disadvantageous for the kernel.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.