linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/20] Introduce common headers

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: <877dzt72ob.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 09 Mar 2020 20:23:32 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
        x86@...nel.org, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@...roid.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/20] Introduce common headers

Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 11:07:08AM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> On 3/6/20 4:04 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> To solve the problem, I decided to use the approach below:
>> >>  * Extract from include/linux/ the vDSO required kernel interface
>> >>    and place it in include/common/
>> > 
>> > I really like the approach, but I’m wondering if “common” is the
>> > right name. This directory is headers that aren’t stable ABI like
>> > uapi but are shared between the kernel and the vDSO. Regular user
>> > code should *not* include these, right?
>> > 
>> > Would “vdso” or perhaps “private-abi” be clearer?
>> 
>> Thanks! These headers are definitely not "uapi" like and they are meant to
>> evolve in future like any other kernel header. We have just to make sure that
>> the evolution does not break what we are trying to achieve with this series.
>
> Given we already include uapi/* headers in kernel code, I think placing
> these in a vdso/* namespace would be fine. I think that more clearly
> expresses the constraints on the headers than private-abi/* would.

Yes, that makes most sense.

Thanks,

        tglx