linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch 00/15] entry: Provide generic implementation for host and guest entry/exit work

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1909232244560.1934@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 23 Sep 2019 22:50:19 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, James Morse <james.morse@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 00/15] entry: Provide generic implementation for host
 and guest entry/exit work

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019, Mark Rutland wrote:
> I've been working on converting the arm64 entry code to C for a while
> now [1], gradually upstreaming the bits I can.
> 
> James has picked up some of that [2] as a prerequisite for some RAS
> error handling, and I think building the arm64 bits atop of that would
> be preferable. IIUC that should get posted as a series come -rc1.
> 
> Since there's immense scope for subtle breakage, I'd prefer that we do
> the arm64-specific asm->C conversion before migrating arm64 to generic
> code. That way us arm64 folk can ensure the asm->C conversion retains
> the existing behaviour, and it'll be easier for everyone to compare the
> arm64 and generic C implementations.

Right. It still would be nice to have some feedback on the general
approach.

That sais I'm happy to let you screw your entry code up yourself :)

Thanks

	tglx