linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 00/18] Enable FSGSBASE instructions

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: <20200528194157.GB1407771@sasha-vm>
Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 15:41:57 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Don Porter <porter@...unc.edu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bp@...en8.de, luto@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
        dave.hansen@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
        ravi.v.shankar@...el.com, chang.seok.bae@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 00/18] Enable FSGSBASE instructions

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:19:10PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 01:40:16PM -0400, Don Porter wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> On 5/28/20 6:29 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > > Until recently, we were doing proof-of-concept research, not product
>> > > development, and there are limited hours in the day.  I also hasten to
>> > > say that the product of research is an article, the software artifact
>> > > serves as documentation of the experiment.  In contrast, the product of
>> > > software development is software.  It takes significant time and effort
>> > > to convert one to the other.  Upstreaming code is of little scientific
>> > > interest.  But things have changed for our project; we had no users in
>> > > 2015 and we are now un-cutting corners that are appropriate for research
>> > > but inappropriate for production.  For a research artifact with an
>> > > audience that knew the risks, we shipped a module because it was easier
>> > > to maintain and install than a kernel patch.
>> >
>> > I understand that and with a big fat warning and documentation from
>> > start I wouldn't have complained so vehemently.
>>
>> This is a fair point.  We will fix this ASAP, and I will be more careful
>> about this going forward.
>
>Are you going to experiment with this patch set and Graphene? Just
>sanity checking so that I don't unnecessarily do duplicate work.
>
>I ignored most of the discussion since I came here only with the
>motivation of testing Graphene together with this patch set. I'm
>assuming that motivation is always good no matter which angle you come
>from. Thus, I might have missed the part I'm asking.

This series was heavily tested with Graphene-like workloads.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha