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: <20170130154521.rtmqgsqkchdvxucv@pd.tnic>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:45:21 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] x86/fpu: Remove 'kbuf' parameter from the
 copy_xstate_to_user() APIs

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:57:28AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Would anyone object to using u32 in these prototypes?

Well, would there be any disadvantage to forcing them to u32?
Potentially by something else wanting to use those interfaces besides
the regset thing and that something else doesn't like u32s?

Otherwise, I don't see a problem.

I mean, if 4G are not enough for xstate dimensions then we have a whole
different problem.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ