linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/50] x86/boot/e820: Introduce arch/x86/include/asm/e820/types.h

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: <20170131163508.GA16162@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:35:08 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/50] x86/boot/e820: Introduce
 arch/x86/include/asm/e820/types.h


* Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:

> Obvious when there are two vastly different solutions there are some
> middle ground solutions too.
>
> And perf implements a tool based method to check that the manually 
> copied/created/maintained headers are in sync with the kernel. which is just 
> another way to maintain a set of copied headers.
> 
> But this does not at all address the point which is that it is an unessesary 
> burden to put on all the _users_ of the kernel uapi headers to amintain their 
> own copy of the kernel headers (tool assisted or not).

In 99% of the cases it's trivial to keep them updated on the tooling side. 
Basically a copy only has to be made if a change is done - and changes are not 
that common in the ABI space.

> The rationale behind requesting the users of the kernel uapi headers seems to be 
> that the kernel people would like to have the freedom to fix wrong doings in the 
> past without violatign the uapi.
>
> So the benefit here is simpler headers on the kernel side compared
> to all users of kernel uapi heders to manually (tool assisted or not)
> maintaining their own copies of the uapi kernel headers.

I was reacting to this original claim of yours:

> > > The idea with uapi is the the kernel provides a sane set of headers to be 
> > > used by user space.
> > >
> > > So we avoid random copies that is maintained by random people in random ways 
> > > resulting in random bugs.

There's no 'random copies' - they are copies of past, valid versions of the kernel 
headers, and there's a mechanism to update them to the latest.

> Heck - if this is how it should be done then the the kernel
> should provide the copy of the headers that describe the
> uapi and the kernel should have the tool infrastructure to check
> that the headers are OK.
> Not all the users outside the kernelspace.
> 
> So just to repeat - it is an error prone design to let users
> of the kernel uapi maintain their own copies of the kernel
> uapi header. It is the job of the kernel.

But "random copies" is not what perf does. Tell me, how is the perf mechanism of 
using the headers "error-prone"? It's a delayed COW mechanism - COW is not an 
error-prone concept in any way ...

Thanks,

	Ingo