linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Have insn decoder functions return success/failure

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201021092750.GA4050@zn.tnic>
Date:   Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:27:50 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc:     x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Have insn decoder functions return success/failure

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 09:50:13AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Agreed. So I'm OK for returning the result of "decoding".
> But we also need to note that the returning success doesn't
> mean the instruction is valid. That needs another validator.
>
...

>
> Yes, so let's add the return value (with a note, so that someone
> does not try to use it for validation).

Ok, I'm unclear on that "validation" you talk about. What exactly do
you mean? Can you give an example of how one would determine whether an
instruction is valid? And valid how?

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette