linux-kernel - Re: Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree

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: <20170926131525.GE15480@leverpostej>
Date:   Tue, 26 Sep 2017 14:15:26 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, fschnizlein@...e.com, trenn@...e.com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: Unreviewed arm64 ABI change in linux-next via driver-core tree

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 01:45:37PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> We stumbled over a change in linux-next that has ABI implications for arm64
> and, as far as we can tell, has not been reviewed:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/commit/arch/arm64/kernel?id=fb7ff3f8721b87bf078868c9a252fa0cf71a47c2
> 
> ("fb7ff3f8721b cpuinfo: implement sysfs nodes for arm64")

> Please can you drop this from your tree until we've had a chance to review
> it properly? If Felix can repost it as above, then we can get the discussion
> started because, aside from this email, we have concerns about exactly what
> is being exposed to userspace here.

Seconded.

Experience with the existing /proc/cpuinfo shows that this needs *very*
careful review.

I've worked on arm64's /proc/cpuinfo, and I'd appreciate being Cc'd on
future postings of this series. I'd also recommend that future postings
are also Cc'd to linux-arch (and maybe linux-api) so that the interface
is reviewed by a larger set of relevant parties.

Thanks,
Mark.