linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v15] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel

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]

Date:   Sat, 25 Jan 2020 18:51:31 -0500
From:   Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel

On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 01:50:03PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > 
> > I might be missing something but shouldnt this be !nextflag given the
> > flag being unset is when the task wants sld?
> 
> That logic is convoluted ... but Thomas showed me a much better
> way that is also much simpler ... so this code has gone now. The
> new version is far easier to read (argument is flags for the new task
> that we are switching to)
> 
> void switch_to_sld(unsigned long tifn)
> {
>         __sld_msr_set(tifn & _TIF_SLD);
> }
> 
> -Tony

why doesnt this have the same problem though? tifn & _TIF_SLD still
needs to be logically negated no?