linux-kernel - Re: [patch] Fix up l1ft documentation was Re: Taking a break

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 00:18:24 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     corbet@....net, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@...ian.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix up l1ft documentation was Re: Taking a break - time
 to look back

Hi!

> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Mon 2019-03-11 23:31:08, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Calling this a lie is a completly unjustified personal attack on those who
> > 
> > So how should it be called? I initally used less strong words, only to
> > get "Care to tell what's a lie instead of making bold statements?"
> > back. Also look at the timing of the thread.
> 
> You called it a lie from the very beginning or what do you think made me
> tell you that? Here is what you said:

Actually, I still call it a lie. Document clearly says that bug is
fixed in non-virtualized cases, when in fact it depends on PAE and
limited memory.

> If you want to provide more accurate documentation then you better come up
> with something which is helpful instead of completely useless blurb like
> the below:

At this point I want you to fix it yourself. Lying about security bugs
being fixed when they are not is not cool. I tried to be helpful and
submit a patch, but I don't feel like you are cooperating on getting
the patch applied.

> > +   Mitigation is present in kernels v4.19 and newer, and in
> > +   recent -stable kernels. PAE needs to be enabled for mitigation to
> > +   work.
> 
> No. The mitigation is available when the kernel provides it. Numbers are
> irrelevant because that documentation has to be applicable for stable
> kernels as well. And what is a recent -stable kernel?
> 
> Also the PAE part needs to go to a completely different section.

Best regards,
								Pavel


-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)