| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <06705386-8c7c-d705-9f89-1d894aa0878f@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 16:06:04 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen via Libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: Candidate Linux ABI for Intel AMX and hypothetical new related
features
On 5/21/21 3:07 PM, Len Brown wrote:
> My concern about synchronous allocation is that it will be very easy
> to abuse. programs and threads can ask for buffers they will never
> use. With on-demand allocation, we allocate buffers only if they are
> actually needed.
If someone wants to abuse the on-demand allocation, they will simply
write a single bit to an AMX register. That does *NOT* mean they will
actually execute an instruction that actually uses AMX to do something
meaningful.
In the face of abuse, I think the two approaches are very similar.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists