linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 14/28] x86/fpu/xstate: Prevent unauthorised use of dynamic user state

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: <40E436A1-8729-4D0A-9AF6-579F9999CBE8@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Jun 2021 19:37:49 +0000
From:   "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
To:     "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
        "Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 14/28] x86/fpu/xstate: Prevent unauthorised use of
 dynamic user state

On Jun 16, 2021, at 12:28, Hansen, Dave <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
> That's odd.  How is it possible that the performance of XGETBV(1)
> informed the design of that patch without there being any mention of
> XGETBV in the comments or changelog?

Yes, I admit that it is wrong that the text there highlights the benefit
without fairly mentioning the cost. I will make sure v6 covers them all.

Thanks,
Chang