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  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:   Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:38:57 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Jonathan Adams <jwadams@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/7] x86/sci: add core implementation for system call
 isolation

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 07:03:37AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> So the question IMHO isn't whether it's "valid C", because we already 
> have the Linux kernel's own C syntax variant and are enforcing it with 
> varying degrees of success.

I'm not getting into the whole 'safe' fight here; but you're under
selling things. We don't have a C syntax, we have a full blown C
lanugeage variant.

The 'Kernel C' that we write is very much not 'ANSI/ISO C' anymore in a
fair number of places. And if I can get my way, we'll only diverge
further from the standard.

And this is quite separate from us using every GCC extention under the
sun; which of course also doesn't help. It mostly has to do with us
treating C as a portable assembler and the C people not wanting to
commit to sensible things because they think C is a high-level language.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists