[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210513010614.GH4236@balbir-desktop>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 11:06:14 +1000
From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"jpoimboe@...hat.com" <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"dave.hansen@...el.com" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"thomas.lendacky@....com" <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
"benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Next revision of the L1D flush patches
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:24:16AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26 2021 at 10:31, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 08 2021 at 13:23, Kees Cook wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd still really like to see this -- it's a big hammer, but that's the
> >> point for cases where some new flaw appears and we can point to the
> >> toolbox and say "you can mitigate it with this while you wait for new
> >> kernel/CPU."
> >>
> >> Any further thoughts from x86 maintainers? This seems like it addressed
> >> all of tglx's review comments.
> >
> > Sorry for dropping the ball on this. It's in my list of things to deal
> > with. Starting to look at it now.
>
> So I went through the pile and for remorse I sat down and made the
> tweaks I think are necessary myself.
>
> I've pushed out the result to
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/devel.git x86/l1dflush
>
Thank you I'll take a look and test it.
> The only thing I did not address yet is that the documentation lacks any
> mentioning of the SIGBUS mechanism which is invoked when a task which
> asked for L1D flush protection ends up on a SMT sibling for whatever
> reason. That's essential to have because it's part of the contract of
> that prctl.
IIRC I documented it, I'll double check.
>
> Balbir, can you please double check the result and prepare an updated
> version from there?
>
> If you don't have cycles, please let me know.
>
I might have some cycles for testing and re-review. Thanks for all the
hard work on this
Balbir Singh.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists