linux-kernel - Re: [patch V2 17/29] x86/exceptions: Disconnect IST index and stack order

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 6 Apr 2019 00:00:40 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 17/29] x86/exceptions: Disconnect IST index and stack
 order

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 05:07:15PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * The exception stack ordering in [cea_]exception_stacks
> > + */
> > +enum exception_stack_ordering {
> > +	ISTACK_DF,
> > +	ISTACK_NMI,
> > +	ISTACK_DB,
> > +	ISTACK_MCE,
> > +	N_EXCEPTION_STACKS
> > +};
> 
> While clever, it reads as "interrupt stack" to me.  ESTACK or IST_STACK
> would be infinitely better.

Fair enough.