linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/15] x86/tlb: Unexport per-CPU tlbstate

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: <87sggyax05.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 20 Apr 2020 19:27:06 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/15] x86/tlb: Unexport per-CPU tlbstate

Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:
> Just looking over some exports at the end of the series (and thus
> ignoring bisection issues):
>
>  - Is there any good reason to keep __flush_tlb_all inline vs moving it
>    out of line and kill the flush_tlb_local and flush_tlb_global exports.
>    Also there is just a single modular users in SVM, I wonder if there is
>    any way to get rid of that one as well.

I'll have a look again.

> Also I think cpu_tlbstate itself could be marked static in tlb.c with
> a few more changes, I wonder if would be worth it?

Unfortunately it can't. We need it in the low level entry code due to
PTI and solving that would be a messy surgery.

Thanks,

        tglx