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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 08:33:36 -0700 From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com> Cc: corbet@....net, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, x86@...nel.org, vkuznets@...hat.com, wanpengli@...cent.com, jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, mchehab+samsung@...nel.org, changbin.du@...el.com, namit@...are.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de, yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com, asteinhauser@...gle.com, anshuman.khandual@....com, jan.kiszka@...mens.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, steven.price@....com, rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterx@...hat.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com, arjunroy@...gle.com, logang@...tatee.com, thellstrom@...are.com, aarcange@...hat.com, justin.he@....com, robin.murphy@....com, ira.weiny@...el.com, keescook@...omium.org, jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com, vineela.tummalapalli@...el.com, yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com, sam@...nborg.org, acme@...hat.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] arch/x86: Update config and kernel doc for MPK feature on AMD On 5/23/20 5:21 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> +config X86_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS >> + # Set the "INTEL_"-free option whenever the "INTEL_" one is set. >> + # The "INTEL_" one should be removed and replaced by this option >> + # after 5.10. This avoids exposing most 'oldconfig' users to this >> + # churn. >> + def_bool X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS > I only picked up the discussion from the sidelines but why do we need > this at all? If we don't want to have churn, then we can leave it be > called X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS, not change the manpage and > have this depend on CPU_SUP_AMD too so that people can select it on AMD > machines, and get on with our lives. > > So what's up? Thanks for pointing that out. I think this ended up mixing together the two alternative, which doesn't make much sense. Babu, let's just leave the config option _naming_ entirely in place. The only change should be to the dependencies and the description text.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists