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: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 13:11:09 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>, kitsunyan <kitsunyan@...mail.cc>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/msr: do not warn on writes to OC_MAILBOX Hi, On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:46:35PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Are you sure that intel-undervolt using OC_MAILBOX from userspace is > actually a "misuse"? Should the kernel or kernel drivers actually be > involved with the task of underclocking? This seems pretty squarely in > the realm of "hobbyists poking and prodding at their CPUs" rather than > something made for a kernel driver, right? The only thing I'm sure is that *if* it makes sense for any driver to control something in the hardware over MSRs, it should *not* poke at naked MSRs but use a proper interface. I'd leave it to the people who actually need this interface, to explain why they do. > Also, what was the justification for whitelisting > MSR_IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS? That's: tools/power/x86/x86_energy_perf_policy/x86_energy_perf_policy.c Once that thing gets converted to a proper interface too, that MSR goes off the allowlist too. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists