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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1802201815550.24268@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Tue, 20 Feb 2018 18:18:12 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
cc:     fenghua.yu@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com, gavin.hindman@...el.com,
        vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 11/22] x86/intel_rdt: Associate pseudo-locked
 regions with its domain

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 2/20/2018 2:00 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> >> In addition to the above research from my side I also followed up with
> >> the CPU architects directly to question the usage of these instructions
> >> instead of wbinvd.
> > 
> > What was their answer? This really wants a proper explanation and not just
> > experimentation results as it makes absolutely no sense at all.
> 
> I always prefer to provide detailed answers but here I find myself at
> the threshold where I may end up sharing information not publicly known.
> This cannot be the first time you find yourself in this situation. How
> do you prefer to proceed?

Well, if it's secret sauce we'll have to accept it. Though it really does
not improve the confidence in all those mechanisms ....

Thanks,

	tglx

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ