linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 0/6] x86: dynamic indirect branch promotion

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]

Message-ID: <20190103181057.lflra4lkoaeg2btv@treble>
Date:   Thu, 3 Jan 2019 12:10:57 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/6] x86: dynamic indirect branch promotion

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 07:53:06PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 2018, at 11:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 11:20 PM Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> wrote:
> >> This is a revised version of optpolines (formerly named retpolines) for
> >> dynamic indirect branch promotion in order to reduce retpoline overheads
> >> [1].
> > 
> > Some of your changelogs still call them "relpolines".
> > 
> > I have a crazy suggestion: maybe don't give them a cute name at all?
> > Where it's actually necessary to name them (like in a config option),
> > use a description like CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEVIRTUALIZATION or
> > CONFIG_PATCH_INDIRECT_CALLS or something.

Cute or not, naming is important.

If you want a description instead of a name, it will be a challenge to
describe it in 2-3 words.

I have no idea what "dynamic devirtualization" means.

"Patch indirect calls" doesn't fully describe it either (and could be
easily confused with static calls and some other approaches).

> I’m totally fine with that (don’t turn me into a "marketing” guy). It was
> just a way to refer to the mechanism. I need more feedback about the more
> fundamental issues to go on.

Naming isn't marketing.  It's a real issue: it affects both usability
and code readability.

-- 
Josh