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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:16:06 -0700
From:   Ricardo Neri <>
To:     Borislav Petkov <>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Brian Gerst <>,
        Chris Metcalf <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,
        Paolo Bonzini <>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <>,
        Huang Rui <>, Jiri Slaby <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <>,
        Paul Gortmaker <>,
        Vlastimil Babka <>,
        Chen Yucong <>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <>,
        Shuah Khan <>,,,,
        Adam Buchbinder <>,
        Colin Ian King <>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <>,
        Qiaowei Ren <>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <>,
        Adrian Hunter <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Thomas Garnier <>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 19/29] x86/insn-eval: Add support to resolve 32-bit
 address encodings

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 08:38:25PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:24:48AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > I will create these helper functions. This change and your suggestion in
> > patch 18 will impact other patches in the series (e.g., the function
> > get_addr_ref_16() in patch 22). Would it make sense to submit a v10 and
> > resume review there?
> > 
> > Also, do you think I am still on-time to make it to v4.15?
> Well, I've been thinking about it: handling huge patchsets is always
> very cumbersome, time-consuming and error prone. So perhaps it would be
> easier - maybe - I'm not saying it will definitely but only maybe - if
> you would split the patchset into, say, two, pieces, or halves, if you
> will.
> And I think the first piece is more or less reviewed and if tip guys
> don't find any booboos, it could go in now. Which would free you to deal
> with the other half later.

Since MPX uses this emulation code and only cares about 64-bit addresses
(given the initial implemention from which I based my code), patches 1-18
need to be pulled together.

Perhaps I can send the v10 of patches 1-18 (or a v1 since is a new
series?). Patches 19-29 would constitute a series of improved emulation
plus UMIP code.

Does it make sense?

Thanks and BR,
> -- 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists