linux-kernel - Re: second, sync-alloc syscall

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]

Date:   Thu, 27 May 2021 09:59:00 -0400
From:   Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: second, sync-alloc syscall

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 7:14 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:

> So if this second syscall doesn't sound really great, I'd say we stick
> to the #NM-based allocation and keep this one in the bag for now and
> take it out only if it turns out that it makes sense as a use case.

I agree.  Simple to add if later, if something requires it --
though given it's modest incremental value, currently hard to justify.

> As tglx said: it is easy to add stuff later. It is a lot harder - even
> impossible - to remove already present machinery.

Indeed.

thanks!
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center