[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9F76711C-393C-4F8D-B460-26D400458690@vmware.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 18:38:30 +0000
From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
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>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] x86/alternatives: text_poke() fixes
at 11:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 11:09:23AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 10:58 AM, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> wrote:
>>> It depends what security you want. Some may consider even the short
>>> time-window in which the kernel code is writable from other cores as
>>> insufficient for security.
>>>
>>> In addition, the set removes the need for remote TLB shootdowns that
>>> text_poke() - with this fix - requires.
>>
>> I’m personally in favor of not needing a global broadcast flush to install kprobes.
>
> That's fine. But at that point its an optimization, not a correctness
> issue.
Note that patch 1/6 is still needed to fix false lockdep shoutouts due to a
recent patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists