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  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:   Mon, 6 Jul 2020 20:29:26 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <>
Cc:     Marco Elver <>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Sami Tolvanen <>,
        Masahiro Yamada <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        clang-built-linux <>,
        Kernel Hardening <>,
        linux-arch <>,
        Linux ARM <>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <>,
        LKML <>,,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/22] add support for Clang LTO

On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 09:26:33AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> And perhaps more constructively, we do need to prioritize address and data
> dependencies over control dependencies.  For one thing, there are a lot
> more address/data dependencies in existing code than there are control
> dependencies, and (sadly, perhaps more importantly) there are a lot more
> people who are convinced that address/data dependencies are important.

If they do not consider their Linux OS running correctly :-)

> For another (admittedly more theoretical) thing, the OOTA scenarios
> stemming from control dependencies are a lot less annoying than those
> from address/data dependencies.
> And address/data dependencies are as far as I know vulnerable to things
> like conditional-move instructions that can cause problems for control
> dependencies.
> Nevertheless, yes, control dependencies also need attention.

Today I added one more \o/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists