linux-kernel - Re: Patch "x86/fpu: Don't export __kernel_fpu_{begin,end}()" has been added to the 4.19-stable tree

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 2 May 2019 07:42:21 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        20181129150210.2k4mawt37ow6c2vq@...utronix.de,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        stable-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Patch "x86/fpu: Don't export __kernel_fpu_{begin,end}()" has been
 added to the 4.19-stable tree

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:02 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 10:47:07AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 6:36 AM <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
> > >
> > >     x86/fpu: Don't export __kernel_fpu_{begin,end}()
> > >
> > > to the 4.19-stable tree which can be found at:
> > >     http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
> >
> > Why?  ISTM the only possible effect is to break out-of-tree modules.
> > I have no objection to breaking such modules if we need to, but, in
> > this case, I don't see the benefit.
>
> The "benefit" is that people keep complaining that newer kernels do not
> have this api for some reason and that it is a "regression", which
> completely does not understand how the kernel handles internal apis.

I suppose that's a reasonable point.  But maybe we should actually
give these modules a credible alternative first?  I just send a patch.