linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] RISC-V: Define sys_riscv_flush

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]

Date:   Tue, 14 Aug 2018 06:35:36 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
        Andrew Waterman <andrew@...ive.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux@...inikbrodowski.net, linux@...ck-us.net,
        tklauser@...tanz.ch, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        dan.carpenter@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] RISC-V: Define sys_riscv_flush_icache when SMP=n

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:27:37AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> I'm not sure.  We can implement the syscall fine in !SMP, it's just that the
> vDSO is expected to always eat these calls because in non-SMP mode you can
> do a global fence.i by just doing a local fence.i (there's only one hart).
> 
> The original rationale behind not having the syscall in non-SMP mode was to
> limit the user ABI, but on looking again that seems like it's just a bit of
> extra complexity that doesn't help anything.  It's already been demonstrated
> that nothing is checking the error because it's been silently slipping past
> userspace for six months, so the extra complexity seems like it'll just
> cause someone else to have to chase the bug in the future.
> 
> But I'm really OK either way.  Is there a precedent for what to do here?

I don't know of any.