linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/boot: clear some fields explicitly

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: <e080b061-562f-568f-782d-b014556acdba@zytor.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:28:53 -0700
From:   "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, john.hubbard@...il.com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/boot: clear some fields explicitly

On 7/25/19 3:03 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, hpa@...or.com wrote:
>> On July 25, 2019 2:48:30 PM PDT, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> But seriously I think it's not completely insane what they are doing
>>> and the table based approach is definitely more readable and maintainable
>>> than the existing stuff.
>>
>> Doing this table based does seem like a good idea.
> 
> The question is whether we use a 'toclear' table or a 'preserve' table. I'd
> argue that the 'preserve' approach is saner.
> 

I agree.

>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> 
> I surely excuse the brevity, but the formatting mess which that brevity app
> creates is not excusable.
> 

I'll try to improve it...

	-hpa