linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] #MC mess

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:   Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:43:18 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] #MC mess

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 09:21:15AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> What would be nice is to have a NMI_IRET, that is defined as something
> that wont break legacy CPUs. Where it could be just a nop iret, or maybe
> if possible a "lock iret"? That is, not have a IRET_NON_NMI, as that
> would be all over the place, but just the iret for NMI itself. As
> that's in one place.

You mean, we could keep the nested NMI thing but it won't practically
get executed on NMI_IRET CPUs because there won't be any NMI nesting
anymore?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette