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, 10 Jan 2019 13:24:09 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <>
To:     Sean Christopherson <>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <>,
        Nadav Amit <>, X86 ML <>,
        LKML <>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <>,
        Jason Baron <>, Jiri Kosina <>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        Borislav Petkov <>,
        Julia Cartwright <>, Jessica Yu <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <>,
        Edward Cree <>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/alternative: Use a single access in
 text_poke() where possible

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:04:28 -0800
Sean Christopherson <> wrote:

> > What atomicity guarantee does the above require?  
> I was asking in the context of static calls.  My understanding is that
> the write to change the imm32 of the CALL needs to be atomic from a
> code fetch perspective so that we don't jump to a junk address.
> Or were you saying that Intel gave an official OK on text_poke_bp()?

Yes, the latter. I was talking about Intel giving the official OK for

-- Steve

Powered by blists - more mailing lists