linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] __wr_after_init: write rare for static allocation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <cff2bb8d-bd61-c4a0-4e63-4de2133a7b38@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:50:12 +0200
From:   Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...il.com>
To:     Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] __wr_after_init: write rare for static allocation



On 12/12/2018 11:49, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 15:13:56 -0800
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:

>> Hi s390 and powerpc people: it would be nice if this generic
>> implementation *worked* on your architectures and that it will allow
>> you to add some straightforward way to add a better arch-specific
>> implementation if you think that would be better.
> 
> As the code is right now I can guarantee that it will not work on s390.

OK, I have thrown the towel wrt developing at the same time for multiple 
architectures.

ATM I'm oriented toward getting support for one (x86_64), leaving the 
actual mechanism as architecture specific.

Then I can add another one or two and see what makes sense to refactor.
This approach should minimize the churning, overall.


--
igor