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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:36:09 -0700
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC:     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 3:37 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Now we just need to volunteer someone to do that :)
> 

Happy to jump in and do that, since I have an easy repro of the warning here.

In case you missed an earlier response [1], I did have a lingering question 
about what you had in mind for the "to preserve" approach:

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/ffd7a9b6-8017-2d2c-c4f7-65563094ccd0@nvidia.com

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA