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:   Thu, 6 Sep 2018 23:41:22 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] Fix "x86/alternatives: Lockdep-enforce text_mutex
 in text_poke*()"

On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 08:57:38PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> at 1:25 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 07:58:40PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >>> With that CR3 trickery, we can rid ourselves of the text_mutex
> >>> requirement, since concurrent text_poke is 'safe'. That would clean up
> >>> the kgdb code quite a bit.
> >> 
> >> I don’t know. I’m somewhat worried with multiple mechanisms potentially
> >> changing the same code at the same time - and maybe ending up with some
> >> mess.
> > 
> > kgdb only pokes INT3, that should be pretty safe.
> 
> Maybe I misunderstand your point. If you want me to get rid of text_mutex
> completely,

No, just the ugly things kgdb does with it.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ