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  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]
Date:   Wed, 8 Aug 2018 13:34:09 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <>
To:     Marc Zyngier <>
Cc:     Dave Martin <>,
        Will Deacon <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Trap WFI executed in userspace

On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 11:24:34AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 07/08/18 11:05, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 10:33:26AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> It recently came to light that userspace can execute WFI, and that
> >> the arm64 kernel doesn trap this event. This sounds rather benign,

Nitpick: "doesn't".

> >> but the kernel should decide when it wants to wait for an interrupt,
> >> and not userspace.
> >>
> >> Let's trap WFI and treat it as a way to yield the CPU to another
> >> process.
> > I can't think of a legitimate reason for userspace to execute WFI
> > however.  Userspace doesn't have interrupts under Linux, so it makes
> > no sense to wait for one.
> > 
> > Have we seen anybody using WFI in userspace?  It may be cleaner to
> > map this to SIGILL rather than be permissive and regret it later.
> I couldn't find any user, and I'm happy to just send userspace to hell
> in that case. But it could also been said that since it was never
> prevented, it is a de-facto ABI.

I wouldn't really go as far as SIGILL on WFI. I think the patch is fine
as it is. In case Will plans to merge it:

Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists