linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/boot/32: Delete cpuinfo_x86::wp_works

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170330070657.GA5176@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:06:57 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/boot/32: Delete cpuinfo_x86::wp_works_ok


* Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:48:41AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> Linux refuses to boot if WP doesn't work okay, so tracking whether
> >> it works serves no purpose.  The only use I can see at all for wp_works_ok
> >> is that it lets Xen bypass test_wp_bit().  If this is truly needed,
> >> it could be more cleanly handled using X86_FEATURE_XENPV, but it
> >> looks like Xen can handle test_wp_bit() correctly without special
> >> cases at all.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/commit/?id=6415813bae75feba10b8ca3ed6634a72c2a4d313
> >
> > What's up?
> >
> 
> Wow, I based on tip/x86/mm per Ingo's request, but maybe that was the
> wrong branch, and apparently Mathias did the same thing in the mean
> time.  Whoops.  I'll rebase again.

Oops, I didn't realize the duplication either. The splitting up of the patch that 
I requested made the merge easier I suspect - albeit that's an unintended side 
effect.

Thanks,

	Ingo